The Issue The issue is whether the City of Crestview's (City's) small-scale development amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 1370 on November 26, 2007, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background B & H is a Florida corporation which owns and operates a number of concrete batch plants and a surveying and engineering company known as Integrated Engineering Solutions, LLC. The parties have stipulated that B & H is the owner of property within the City and submitted comments to the City in support of the change in the land use prior to the adoption of the plan amendment. As such, B & H is an affected person and has standing to participate in this matter. In 2005, B & H purchased a 75.56-acre tract of vacant, undeveloped land in the unincorporated part of Okaloosa County (County), just southwest of the City. The parcel is generally bounded on its northern side by Interstate 10 (I-10) and by a 150-foot wide Gulf Power Company easement on its southern boundary. All of the property carried a County land use designation of RR, which limits development to one residential unit per five acres. See Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 10.1.e. (Petitioner's Exhibit A). After B & H purchased the property, it applied for development approval (including a land use change from RR to an industrial) from the County. In the face of substantial public opposition, and a negative staff recommendation, B & H withdrew its application during a County Planning Commission hearing on April 12, 2007. (The County staff noted that the property "is located in the immediate vicinity of . . . a residential subdivision"; that a wide range of industrial uses would be allowed on the property if it was changed to IN; that the requested action would have the effect of "spot zoning"; that there is no shortage of industrial-zoned lands in other areas of the County; and that "the requested action is not compatible with the proximate residential subdivision and does not result in an appropriate transition of uses, densities, and intensities as expressed in [FLUE] Policy 4.4.") Shortly thereafter, B & H filed a petition for voluntary annexation with the City. On August 27, 2007, the City annexed a 9.98-acre parcel of B & H's land lying in the eastern half of the larger parcel. (The remainder of the larger parcel remains in the County.) B & H then filed an application in the form of a small-scale development amendment seeking a change in the land use on the property from RR to IN. Because the size of the parcel was less than 10 acres, the change in land use was accomplished by this type of amendment, which is not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs (Department). See § 163.3187(1)(c)1. and (3)(a), Fla. Stat. According to FLUE Policy 7.A.3.4.f. in the City's Plan, the IN category is designed to protect lands for production and distribution of goods and for other industrial activities. A wide range of industrial uses and commercial uses are allowed in this category. Specific uses include light and heavy manufacturing, assembly, training facilities, vehicle repair (including body work and painting), packaging, processing, wholesale business and warehousing, truck terminals, borrow pits, asphalt/concrete plants, heavy equipment sales, service and/or rentals, and other uses similar to those listed herein. Residential uses are prohibited except as an accessory to a permitted use. In addition to the application for a change in the FLUM, B & H submitted an application for site plan approval for a concrete batch plant to be located on the southern end of the subject property. This use would be consistent with the IN category. However, until this proceeding is concluded, the site plan will not be reviewed, modified, or approved by the City, and therefore any development provisions incorporated therein are not final. Further, the proposed use (a concrete batch plant) requires the issuance of a permit by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). On September 9, 2007, the City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the amendment and voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the application to the City Council. On October 8, 2007, a first reading of Ordinance No. 1370 implementing the amendment occurred at the City Council meeting. On October 22, 2007, a public hearing was held before the City Council. The City Council voted 3-2 to deny the amendment. On November 13, 2007, the City Council conducted another public hearing for the first reading of the amendment. On November 26, 2007, the City Council conducted a second public hearing on the amendment and adopted Ordinance No. 1370 enacting the amendment. (New zoning on the land will not be imposed until or unless the plan amendment here is found to be in compliance.) Although not subject to review by the Department, the following day the City sent a copy of the adopted Ordinance to the Department. On December 24, 2007, Petitioner, who resides in Antioch Estates, a nearby residential subdivision located within the City, filed her Petition with DOAH. On February 7, 2008, she moved to amend the Petition and authorization to do so was granted by Order dated February 8, 2008. In her Amended Petition, she generally contended that the amendment is not in compliance because it is internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions in several respects; the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis; the property being reclassified is greater than 10 acres in size and therefore cannot qualify as a small-scale development amendment; the City did not analyze the financial feasibility of the amendment; and the City failed to conduct the necessary intergovernmental coordination and review. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner resides within the City and offered comments in opposition to the amendment prior to its adoption. As such, she is an affected person and has standing to challenge the amendment. At the hearing, Petitioner, who is a planner for the City of Destin but resides in Crestview, acknowledged that before she filed her initial Petition, her husband was contacted by a representative of Couch Ready Mix USA (Couch), a non-party who operates a concrete batch plant 0.8 miles southeast of Antioch Estates on Old Antioch Road, and with whom B & H would compete if the application is approved and a new concrete batch plant constructed on the site. However, Petitioner stated that she would have filed a petition even if her husband had not been contacted by Couch. Even so, it is fair to infer from the evidence that funding for Petitioner's counsel and two experts was provided by Couch. The Subject Property The subject property is a 9.98-acre parcel bordered on the north by I-10 and on the east, west, and south by property owned by B & H, all of which is designated RR and zoned Agricultural. Directly to the east of the larger B & H parcel is a 70-foot strip of vacant land owned by Rhett Enzor, a non- party whose land stretches from I-10 southward to the Gulf Power easement. The Enzor property also carries a RR land use designation and Agricultural zoning. Besides the 70-foot strip on the eastern side, Mr. Enzor owns the other property that surrounds the larger parcel to the south and west; however, the extent of that property is not of record. Just to the east-northeast and adjacent to the Enzor property is a residential subdivision (Antioch Estates) comprised of around 125 homes. The subdivision is divided into two sections - the larger section lying north of I-10 and the smaller section located just south of I-10. It is unclear whether the entire subdivision has 125 units, or if the southern portion alone has that number. In any event, Petitioner and members of the public who offered comments at the hearing reside in the southern portion of the subdivision and oppose the application. At its closest point, the western boundary of the subdivision (particularly lots 51-55) appears to be slightly more than 600 feet from the 9.98-acre parcel, but no more than 70 feet or so from the eastern boundary of the larger parcel. The distance to the proposed concrete batch plant, which will lie in the south-southwest end of the subject property, is slightly less than one-quarter mile. An elementary school (Antioch Elementary School) with an enrollment of around 800 students and 100 staff, built sometime after 1996, is located just east of Antioch Estates. A former borrow pit, Blocker Pit, lies south of the subdivision, while an active borrow pit, Garret Pit, lies around one-half mile or so southeast of the subdivision. Antioch Estates is classified by the City as Low Density Residential (LDR), while the school is in the Public Use land use category. Under FLUE Policy 7.A.3.4.a., the LDR category "is limited to residential uses, customary accessory uses, recreation uses, churches and places of worship and planned unit developments. Non-profit and civic organizations may be permitted by special exception. This category is intended for single family homes which may be developed with up to six (6) units per gross acre." Antioch Road appears to be a major arterial road running in a northwest-southeast direction (crossing over or under I-10) just east of the elementary school. (Less than a mile southeast of the school, Antioch Road becomes P.J. Adams Parkway.) All vehicles wishing to access the school, Antioch Estates, or the 9.98-parcel (as well as the larger B & H parcel) must do so by turning off of Antioch Road onto Garret Pit Road, a County-maintained road which intersects with Antioch Road just south of I-10. Within a short distance, Garret Pit Road intersects with Whitehurst Lane, a paved road which runs in a northwest direction from Garret Pit Road to the school and eventually makes a loop in the subdivision. At the Whitehurst Lane intersection, Garret Pit Road turns into a dirt road. Vehicles traveling to B & H's property continue south on Garret Pit Road for 300 feet or so until it intersects with Point Center Road, a privately-owned, unplatted and undedicated dirt road which runs directly west from Garrett Pit Road (and roughly parallel to I-10) through the Enzor strip and into the eastern side of the B & H property. From there, it appears that vehicles would turn south for a short distance on Borrow Pit Road (also referred to as Barrow Pit Road on certain map exhibits), another dirt road which eventually turns westward when it reaches the southern boundary of B & H property. The 9.98-acre parcel is around 66 feet north of Borrow Point Road. According to a B & H witness, Point Center Road and Borrow Pit Road are not actually roads, but are more akin to dirt trails which trucks now use to reach the excavating and land fill sites. Finally, Point Center Road passes approximately 140 feet south of, and parallel to, the southern boundary of Antioch Estates. When the subject property was annexed into the City, it retained the County FLUM designation of RR and zoning of Agricultural. The FLUM and zoning designations are retained until a plan amendment and rezoning is approved by the City. Under the County's Plan, residential uses in RR must not exceed one unit per five acres. There is currently an inactive borrow pit (covering around six acres) on the southern part of the 9.98-acre parcel, which extends westward into the larger parcel. B & H says it has no intention of resuming this operation. A small storage facility with "manholes," "pipe," and other "equipment" sits on the southwestern corner of the property, while a small wetlands area of less than an acre occupies the northwestern corner. To the west of the subject parcel on the northwestern corner of the larger parcel is an active, permitted 7.5-acre Construction & Demolition (C & D) landfill. There is some ambiguity in the testimony over the actual size of the landfill; however, in DEP's letter of intent dated March 17, 2006, which transferred Permit No. 0002800-002-SO from the original owner (Point Center, Inc.) to B & H, it stated that B & H is authorized to operate a 7.5-acre disposal unit until March 17, 2010. See Petitioner's Exhibit B. Although the useful life of the existing C & D landfill will eventually run out, at the hearing B & H's Project Manager stated that the company has an application pending with DEP to expand the landfill. The status of that matter is unknown. Expansion of a non-conforming land use, however, may be problematic. See Finding of Fact 21, infra. Besides the active C & D landfill, B & H is also periodically retrieving fill dirt from the larger parcel for site work operations, using up to 30 dump trucks for this work. According to a witness, the larger parcel still has around 3,000,000 cubic yards of usable dirt. Whether B & H is authorized to conduct borrow pit operations on the larger parcel is not of record. More than likely, once the landfill is used up (or no later than March 2010 when the permit expires unless it is renewed), the non-conforming use will have run its course, and the RR designation will apply to all future activities on the larger parcel. Although the entire B & H parcel was classified as RR, the borrow pit and C & D landfill are non-conforming uses under the County's Plan, presumably having been in existence before the County's Plan was adopted. A non-conforming use is one where the actual use of the property is not consistent with the future land use of the comprehensive plan or not consistent with the zoning of the property. There are very strict parameters as to whether or not you can change or modify a non-conforming use. Normally, changes to non-conforming uses are not allowed. A non-conforming use can not be expanded. B & H has acknowledged that it intends to seek annexation of the entire larger parcel into the City. With the exception of the C & D landfill, it is also planning to request a FLUM amendment from RR to IN for the remainder of the larger parcel. Thus, if the instant application is approved, it is fair to say that this action will be the forerunner of an effort to reclassify the entire 75.56 acres (except the 7.5-acre landfill) as industrial property, leaving only the 70-foot strip of Enzor property as a RR buffer between the industrial land and the subdivision. Petitioner's Objections Ten-Acre Maximum Petitioner's first objection is that the amendment does not meet the statutory criteria for a small-scale development amendment because the use involves more than 10 acres. See § 163.3187(1)(c)1., Fla. Stat. ("[t]he proposed amendment [must involve] a use of 10 acres or fewer"). Petitioner argues that parcel size is not the only determinant of what must be included in the amendment, and that any acreage that is integral to the design and operation of the proposed use is considered in determining whether the small scale development amendment criteria are met. Petitioner argues that B & H failed to include in the amendment all acreage that is integral to the design and operation of the proposed use. It is undisputed that the subject parcel is 9.98 acres, as determined by Kermit George, who sealed the property's survey for B & H, and as confirmed by City employee Teresa Gaillard by using the Autocad software program. Relying primarily upon site plans for the concrete batch plant filed by B & H with the City, however, Petitioner contends that the acreage (.0604 acres) related to a 66-foot driveway which will access the south side of the property from Borrow Pit Road, the acreage (1.607 acres) related to the use of Borrow Pit Road after turning off of Point Center Road, the acreage (.052 acres) for an easement necessary to run a County water line from B & H's southern property line to the smaller parcel, and the 150-foot buffer on the east side of the site (which will be required by the City when or if a concrete batch plant is permitted and built) must be included in the total amount of acreage. Excluding the buffer, Petitioner has calculated this additional land to total 1.7194 acres. Petitioner argues that even if only one of the above items is included, it would cause the size of the amendment to exceed ten acres and lose its status as a small-scale development amendment. It is fair to infer from the evidence that the dirt trail that makes up Borrow Pit Road, as well as the 66-foot trail from Borrow Pit Road to the subject property, are already being used by B & H trucks or other vehicles to access the landfill and borrow pit area. Therefore, this "infrastructure" will be used for other purposes, irrespective of whether development on the 9.98-acre parcel occurs. At the same time, the City's planning expert noted that good planning practices do not require that the land necessary to access a parcel with roads or utilities, and off-site buffering, be included in calculating whether the "use" of the parcel exceeds 10 acres. Except as to the buffering issue, this interpretation of the statutory language is more logical and reasonable than Petitioner's approach and is hereby accepted. Compare Parker v. St. Johns County et al., DOAH Case No. 02-2658, 2003 Fla. ENV LEXIS 34 at *12 (DOAH Dec. 17, 2002, DCA Feb. 27, 2003)("[i]t would be unreasonable to construe Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes, as requiring local governments and applicants to calculate pro rata share impacts of off-site utilities, determine proportionate acreage based on those impacts, and apply those figures to the small scale acreage calculations"). The issue of whether the acreage related to the off- site buffering should be included as a use is not so clear cut. The City Land Development Code (LDC) requires that there be appropriate buffering between industrial and residential land uses. While the pertinent portion of the LDC is not of record, the evidence submitted by B & H and the City shows that an approximate 150-foot buffer will be necessary on the eastern side of the parcel. A City witness testified that the buffering "would normally take place upon the property being developed." However, because the use will occur in an existing borrow pit (which is 20 feet below the surface of the adjacent land), the City concluded that it would be more appropriate to place any required vegetative buffer and fencing off-site on the edge of the larger parcel, also owned by B & H. The buffering is an integral part of the project being placed on the parcel. In other words, the plant cannot be built without the required buffering. Therefore, the land on which the buffer and fence will be placed should be included as an integral part of the property's use. Compare St. George Plantation Owners' Association, Inc. v. Franklin County et al., DOAH Case No. 96- 5124GM, 1997 Fla. ENV LEXIS 37 at *18-20 (DOAH Feb. 16, 1997, Admin. Comm. Mar. 25, 1997) where three off-site absorption beds required to serve a wastewater treatment plant were considered an integral part of the facility, thereby increasing the size of the amendment's "use" from 9.6 to 14.6 acres. By adding the acreage for the 150-foot off-site buffer and fencing to the 9.98 acres, the use of the property that is the subject of the amendment clearly involves more than 10 acres and cannot qualify as a small-scale development amendment. Data and Analysis Petitioner also objects to the amendment as not being supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, as required by Section 163.3177(8) and (10)(e), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). Paragraph (2)(a) of the rule requires that "plan amendments . . . shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element." To be based on data "means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of the adoption of the . . . plan amendment at issue." Id. Petitioner points out that B & H has acknowledged (by way of answers to Requests for Admissions and stipulated facts in its Motion in Limine) that it did not present to the City any studies or data related to noise, traffic, property values, air pollution, or protected natural resources that may be impacted by, or attributable to, a concrete batch plant being placed on the subject property. She also argues that to the extent an analysis was made in the City's staff report (as to infrastructure demands, protection of wetlands and natural resources, traffic, financial feasibility, and compatibility), it was based on incorrect data or was otherwise insufficient. The City's planning consultant prepared the staff report for the City, which summarizes the data and analysis supporting the amendment. See § 1, Joint Exhibit E, which is a six and one-half page staff report. The analysis was performed on the premise that a concrete batch plant would be located on the subject property. The staff report indicates that "[t]he purpose of the amendment is to provide for the development of a concrete batch plant." See page 1, § 1, Joint Exhibit E. The staff report contains in summary form the data and analysis supporting the amendment. Section 1 reflects that the City relied upon (a) FLUM map sheet 7-5, which indicated that all adjacent lands except I-10 on the north side are in the RR land use category while lands in the vicinity are classified as LDR, MDR, Conservation, Public Lands, Industrial, and Commercial; (b) data reflecting that the existing use of land on the subject property is vacant and undeveloped; the larger B & H parcel contains a C & D landfill and is otherwise vacant; adjacent properties include numerous single-family homes and subdivisions, existing and planned multi-family projects, planned commercial uses, and a school; and wetlands are located in the northwest corner of the subject property; (c) data showing that the type of development on the property will be a concrete batch plant; (d) data showing that the amendment will "result in a significant decrease in potential demands on all City infrastructure systems" (potable water, sewer, solid waste, recreation/open space, drainage, and traffic) because it will eliminate potential future demands for residential units that would otherwise be allowed on the RR property; (e) data reflecting that the change in land use is compatible and suitable with adjacent lands because the proposed facility is "not adjacent to any homes, schools or other similar uses," and the adjacent properties are owned by B & H; (f) data showing that the site is generally level with an average elevation of 100 feet; (g) data in the Soil Survey of Okaloosa County, Florida indicating that the soil "is suited for the planned use and development of the subject property"; (h) data reflecting that there is "a small area with wetland soils" in the northwest corner of the property which will not be developed; and (i) data indicating that there are no historic and archeological resources on the property. The consultant also reviewed the current Plan to determine if the plan amendment was consistent with all relevant provisions and concluded that the "amendment is consistent with and furthers the adopted Comprehensive Plan." He added that at the same time the small-scale amendment was being considered, the City was also considering a set of large-scale amendments to its Plan (presumably to the FLUM), and the data and analysis used for those amendments provide further support for the amendment being challenged. However, the nature of the large- scale amendments, and their underlying data and analysis, are not of record or otherwise identified. Finally, the City did not perform a concurrency analysis since it says that the Department no longer requires one at the amendment stage and instead defers that task until the development process begins. Whether the City specifically considered the concerns noted in the County's staff report recommending a denial of the land use change is not clear. However, the staff report discounted the notion that the amendment would encourage urban sprawl (or "spot zoning" in the words of the County staff report) since it promotes urban infill development. In response to a criticism by Petitioner, at hearing the City's consultant utilized further data from City sources, presumably available at the time the amendment was adopted, which indicate that the total available capacity for new customer usage from the City's water system is 3.2 million gallons per day, or far more than is necessary to meet the water requirements related to the proposed industrial usage. Without providing specifics, the consultant also opined that if the County is called upon to provide water to the site, as B & H now intends, it likewise has sufficient capacity to do so. In analyzing the impacts on infrastructure, the City assumed that a change from RR to IN, and the placement of a concrete batch plant on the property, would "result in a significant decrease in potential demands on all City infrastructure systems." The more persuasive evidence shows, however, that when comparing the new traffic that would be generated by potential residential units on the property versus a concrete batch plan, the latter would probably generate an increase of at least 110 vehicle trips per day, most by heavy trucks, which is more than five times the number of trips used in the City's analysis. In contrast, the staff report stated that the projected demands from development of the plant "[i]n theory, [could result in] up to 20 trucks trips per day" but this high a number was "not likely." In this respect, the data being used and analyzed were not correct or were incomplete, and the City's assumptions drawn from that data were flawed. Thus, as to these impacts, the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Although the staff report also failed to reflect the increased water usage that would be generated by the concrete batch plant, at hearing the City relied upon available data to show that both the City and County had sufficient capacity to provide water service for the plant. To a certain degree, compatibility and suitability overlap one another. "Compatibility" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(23) as "a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition." This criterion is used to evaluate whether the proposed industrial land use is compatible with the uses on nearby or adjacent properties. On the other hand, subsection (128) of the rule defines "suitability" as "the degree to which the existing characteristics and limitations of land and water are compatible with a proposed use or development." This criterion requires a determination of whether the industrial land use category is suitable in this particular area, given the existing characteristics of the land. After reviewing and analyzing data on the issue of suitability and compatibility, the City concluded that because B & H owned all the lands around the site (except on the northern boundary which adjoined I-10), "adverse issues [not otherwise identified in the report] associated with compatibility should be minimized." To further support its finding of suitability and compatibility, the report went on to state that the subject property "is not adjacent to any homes, schools or other similar uses." While the data used by the City (such as the FLUM map) were adequate, the City did not react to it in an appropriate manner. The City is correct in concluding that a change to an industrial land use category may be suitable on land where a non-conforming borrow pit already exists. However, because the proposed industrial use is in "relative proximity" to rural residential land on three of its sides, a large residential subdivision that begins no more than 200 yards away, an access road used by numerous heavy trucks which lies only 140 feet south of the subdivision, and a single outlet for all traffic exiting the subdivision, school, and B & H property, it is fair to infer that there will be a direct or indirect negative impact on those adjacent or nearby uses in contravention of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(123). In this respect, the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. The City's recognition of the wetlands area on the subject property, and its finding in the report that such lands would be protected if development occurs, constitutes sufficient data and analysis and appropriate reaction thereto to satisfy the statute and rule. Petitioner also contends there was no analysis related to the fact that Point Center Road, the private road used to access the parcel, crosses wetlands "at the bottom of the hills," and the wetlands will be impacted by the change. As pointed out at hearing, however, the road has been there "forever," and filling of the adjacent wetlands occurred many years ago, or long before B & H acquired the property. Other than paving the road if the land change is approved, no other "filling" will occur, and the City's assessment of this matter was sufficient. All other contentions by Petitioner regarding the lack of sufficient data and analysis to support the amendment have been considered and rejected. Financial Feasibility Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, requires that "the comprehensive plan shall be financially feasible." Relying upon this statute, Petitioner contends that the City failed to analyze whether the amendment was financially feasible. According to Petitioner's expert, when a FLUM change is made, a financial feasibility analysis must be made, which requires that the local government make a facility-based analysis to demonstrate whether the local government has sufficient capacity for the change. Specifically, she argues that there is no commitment from the County to provide water, and that the City did not analyze whether the City or County has the capacity to provide sufficient water to serve a concrete batch plant. Although the staff report addresses this issue in summary fashion and without specifics, at hearing the City's planning consultant testified, without contradiction, that the total available capacity from the City's water system is 3.2 million gallons per day, or far more than is necessary to meet the potential water requirements of a concrete batch plant on the site. He also opined, without contradiction, that if the County is called upon to provide the water, it likewise has sufficient capacity to do so. Based upon this analysis of available data, it is found that financial feasibility was adequately addressed by the city. Intergovernmental Coordination Petitioner next contends that the City did not evaluate and coordinate the amendment with the County, as required by Section 163.3177(4)(a), Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015, and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) of the City's Plan. The statute provides in part that "[c]oordination of the local comprehensive plan with the comprehensive plans of . . . the county . . . shall be a major objective of the comprehensive planning process." The two most relevant provisions in the Plan on this subject, both very general in nature, are ICE Goal 13.A., which states that a goal of the Plan is to "[p]rovide coordination of this plan (ordinance) with Okaloosa County, other local governments (as appropriate) and other governmental agencies providing services within the City[,]" and ICE Objective 13.A.1., which provides that the City shall "review, on an annual basis, actions that have taken place to coordinate the Comprehensive Plan of Crestview with the Plans of other units of government and the Okaloosa County School Board." Although the County was given constructive notice of B & H's annexation request through the publication of a notice in a local newspaper on July 7, 2007, there is no evidence that the County was given specific notice that an application for a change in the FLUM had been filed by B & H and was being processed by the City, or that the County was afforded an opportunity to provide input into that process, if it chose to do so. Given the unique circumstances here, coordination is especially important since the subject property is surrounded on three sides by County land designated as RR with Agricultural zoning, the requested change would create a small industrial pocket in the middle of County RR land, and the County staff had just prepared a report recommending denial of the same change before the City annexed the property. While the cited statute, rule, and Plan provisions clearly do not contemplate that adjacent local governments have veto power over the City's ability to enact plan amendments, or that the City is required to accept alternative suggestions proposed by other entities, at a minimum they contemplate that notice of changes be given to adjacent local governments, and that those local governments be afforded the right to offer input, if any, prior to consideration of the amendment. See, e.g., City of West Palm Beach et al. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case Nos. 04-4336GM, 04-4337GM, and 04-4650GM, 2005 Fla. ENV LEXIS 192 at *34-35 (DOAH July 18, 2005, DCA Oct. 21, 2005). Because there was no coordination here, even minimal, the adoption of the plan amendment contravened the cited statute, rule, and ICE Goal 13.A. Internal Consistency Petitioner next argues that, contrary to the requirement in Section 163.3187(2), Florida Statutes, that there be "internal consistency" within a plan, the amendment is inconsistent with the Plan in the following respects: quality of life (Legal Element Section 1.04); compatibility (FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2.c.); school siting (FLUE Policy 7.A.9.1.); and wetlands impacts (Conservation Element Goal 11.A and Objective 11.A.2.). Petitioner first contends that the amendment is inconsistent with the stated general intent and purpose of the Plan, which is found in Section 1.04 of the Plan's Legal Element. That Element contains a "whereas" clause, the Plan's title, jurisdiction for adopting the Plan, the City Council's intent in adopting the Plan, and its effective date. The Element indicates that it is intended to implement Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.001, which sets forth the broad purposes of Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5. Section 1.04 provides in relevant part that the Plan is intended to "maintain and improve the quality of life for all citizens of the City" and to protect and promote the "public health, safety and general welfare of its citizens." This salutary language is so broad and aspirational in nature that the undersigned does not construe it, or other provisions in the Legal Element, as an appropriate basis for finding an amendment not in compliance. Petitioner's argument is accordingly rejected. Petitioner also argues that the amendment is inconsistent with the Plan's requirement that compatibility of adjacent land uses be ensured. FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2.c. appears to be the only Plan provision specifically dealing with this issue and it provides that the LDC shall contain detailed provisions to "ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses." B & H and the City take the position that during the zoning and development phase of the process (rather than during the plan amendment stage) the LDC would be used to ensure compatibility, as required by the Plan. However, the issue of compatibility was analyzed by the City and presented to the City Council, and the staff report contains an entire section on compatibility and suitability. See Finding of Fact 30, supra; § 1, pages 3-4, Joint Exhibit E. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider at the plan amendment stage whether the change in land use is compatible with adjacent or nearby properties. As noted earlier, Antioch Estates is a low-density residential subdivision directly to the east of the B & H parcel. At its closest point, the subject property is around 200 yards from the subdivision. The distance from the subdivision to the proposed concrete batch plant is less than a quarter-mile. At the same time, the road over which the heavy trucks will travel to and from the industrial site is no more than 140 feet south of the southern boundary of the subdivision, and the connecting road eventually terminates at an outlet onto Antioch Road shared by traffic from the subdivision and school. Finally, B & H acknowledges that the proposed change here is a precursor to a request for annexation of the larger parcel into the City and a change in the land use on the larger parcel (except for the land fill) to industrial. This would leave the Enzor property (which is only 70 feet wide) as the sole remaining RR buffer with Antioch Estates. Given these considerations, the change in land use will not "[e]nsure compatibility of adjacent land uses," as required by FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2. Finally, Petitioner contends that the amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 7.A.9.1.1., which provides that a "proposed school location shall be compatible with existing and projected uses of adjacent property." (Emphasis added). Since the Antioch Elementary School already exists, it appears that this provision has no application. For the same reason, Petitioner's contention that the amendment contravenes Section 1013.36(3), Florida Statutes, is also rejected. That statute requires that a new school should not be sited adjacent to factories or other properties from which noise, odors, or other disturbances would be likely to interfere with the educational program. While compatibility issues with existing schools are relevant when a map change is being made, they can only be considered in the context of Plan provisions which directly apply to those issues. Summary In summary, because the amendment involves a use of more than 10 acres, it does not meet the criteria in Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes; the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis with respect to impacts on infrastructure (traffic) and compatibility; the amendment contravenes the statutory, rule, and Plan requirement that it be coordinated with other local governments; and it is internally inconsistent with FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2.c., which requires compatibility of adjacent uses. All other contentions raised by Petitioner have been considered and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the small-scale development amendment adopted by the City by Ordinance No. 1370 on November 26, 2007, is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 2008.
The Issue The Appellants raise several issues on appeal, including: whether Ordinance 003-2015 did not comply with the constitutional single subject rule and did the County’s application of the Ordinance violate the Florida Constitution; whether the County exceeded its police power in enacting Ordinance 003-2015 and failed to follow the essential requirements of the law when it applied the ordinance to the Appellants’ property; (3) whether the Planning Commission’s decision violated its obligations to support, protect, and defend the Unites States and Florida Constitutions; and (4) whether the Appellants were deprived of their fundamental due process rights during the Commission hearing.
The Issue Whether the Department of Community Affairs (Department) should be precluded from prosecuting the instant challenge to the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) of Metropolitan Dade County (Metro-Dade, Dade County or County), as amended by Ordinance No. 90-28, on the ground that it did not comply with the statutory prerequisites to instituting such a challenge? Whether the Redland Citizens Association, Inc., the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, Evelyn B. Sutton, Martin Motes, Frances L. Mitchell, Rod Jude, Bruce Rohde and Carol Rist (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the Objectors") are "affected persons," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, entitled to intervene in this matter and pursue their challenge to the CDMP, as amended by Ordinance No. 90-28? Whether Carol Rist's motion to amend her petition for leave to intervene in this matter should be granted? Whether the challenged amendments made to the CDMP through the adoption of Ordinance No. 90-28, specifically those resulting from the approval of Applications 39, 40 and 47, have rendered the CDMP not "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes? Whether John H. Wellenhofer is entitled to an award of fees and costs against the Department pursuant to Section 163.3184(12), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Metropolitan Dade County: A General Overview Metropolitan Dade County is one of Florida's coastal counties. It is located in the southeastern part of the state and is bordered by Broward County on the north, by Monroe County on the south and southwest, by Collier County on the northwest and by the Atlantic Ocean on the east. Within the boundaries of Metropolitan Dade County are 1,413,629 acres, or approximately 2,209 square miles, of land and water. The major natural features of the County are the Florida Everglades National Park, tropical vegetation, an Atlantic Ocean coastline with several peninsulas and inlets, including Biscayne National Park at Biscayne Bay, and several barrier islands and reefs. The County contains several bodies of water, including various lakes, rivers and streams. Among the most noteworthy water bodies are the Intracoastal Waterway in the eastern part of the County and the expansive wetland systems and their accompanying wildlife habitat located primarily in the western part of the County. Among the major man-made features of the County are I Florida Turnpike, the Metrorail System, canals, causeways connecting Miami Beach and the barrier islands to the mainland, Miami International Airport, Kendall Airport, and Homestead Air Force Base. Metropolitan Dade County is Florida's most populous county with a population approaching two million people. On average, Dade County's population has grown by approximately 36,000 persons per year since the 1970's. There are 26 incorporated municipalities located in Metropolitan Dade County, including the City of Miami, whose downtown area may be viewed as the principal focal point of the entire metropolitan area. Metropolitan Dade County Home Rule Amendment, Charter and Selected Ordinances In 1956, the statewide electorate adopted Article VIII, Section 11 of the 1885 Florida Constitution granting "the electors of Dade County, Florida, . . . power to adopt, revise, and amend from time to time a home rule charter of government for Dade County, Florida, under which the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County shall be the governing body." 4/ The following year, the electors of the County adopted such a home rule charter (Charter). Section 1.01 of the Charter provides that the "Board of County Commissioners shall be the legislative and governing body of the county and shall have the power to carry on a central metropolitan government." The power to "[p]repare and enforce comprehensive plans for the development of the county" is expressly mentioned in Section 1.01 as within the Board's authority. Other powers of the Board specifically enumerated in Section 1.01 include the power to provide, regulate, develop and enforce master plans for the control of traffic; to provide and regulate sewage collection and disposal, waste collection and disposal and water supply programs; to establish and administer drainage programs; to establish and administer conservation programs; and to establish and administer housing programs. Section 4.07 of the Charter establishes a Department of Planning as a unit of central metropolitan County government. This section provides as follows: The department of planning shall be headed by a planning director appointed by the County Manager. The planning director shall be qual- ified in the field of planning by special training and experience. Under the supervision of the Manager and with the advice of the Planning Advisory Board elsewhere provided for in this Charter, the planning director shall among other things: Conduct studies of county population, land use, facilities, resources, and needs and other factors which influence the county's development, and on the basis of such studies prepare such official and other maps and re- ports as, taken together, constitute a master plan for the welfare, recreational, economic, and physical development of the county. Prepare for review by the Planning Advi- sory Board, and for adoption by the Board of County Commissioners, zoning, subdivision, and related regulations for the unincorporated areas of the county and minimum standards governing zoning, subdivision, and related re- gulations for the municipalities; and prepare recommendations to effectuate the master plan and to coordinate the county's proposed capital improvements with the master plan. Review the municipal systems of planning, zoning, subdivision, and related regulations and make recommendations thereon with a view to coordinating such municipal systems with one another and with those of the county. By ordinance, codified in Section 2-106.1 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, the Department of Planning has been designated as the County's local planning agency "responsible for the preparation of the Comprehensive Development master plan for the county." Section 4.08(A) of the Charter directs the Board of County Commissioners to, "by ordinance create a Planning Advisory Board." The Board has done so. The Planning Advisory Board (PAB), as established by the Board, is a nine-member body. The members of the PAB are citizens appointed by the Board. Section 5.02 of the Charter describes the powers that may be exercised by the County's municipalities. It provides as follows: Each municipality shall have the authority to exercise all powers relating to local affairs not inconsistent with this Charter. Each municipality may provide for higher standards of zoning, service and regulation than those provided for by the Board of County Commis- sioners in order that its individual character and standards may be preserved for its citizens. Comprehensive Planning in the County: An Historical Perspective Metropolitan Dade County's first Comprehensive Development Master Plan was adopted by the Board in 1965. This initial version of the CDMP was based upon the unrealistic projection that the County would have two and one half million residents at the planning horizon. To accommodate this projected population, it provided for a spread pattern of low density residential growth, served by numerous expressways. Substantial changes to the CDMP were made in 1975 based upon a lower, more realistic population projection and a consideration of environmental and infrastructure constraints. The result was a plan that provided for a more compact form of urban development concentrated around nodes of activity in the eastern portions of the County. The 1975 version of the CDMP introduced the concept of an urban development boundary. The urban development boundary (UDB) was, and remains to this date, an important part of the plan's urban containment strategy. As its name suggests, the UDB is a line drawn on the plan's future land use map (FLUM) that indicates where urban development will be permitted to reach by the end of the planning period. Since 1975, the CDMP has been amended on various occasions. On eight of these occasions, including most recently in 1990, the amendments have included an expansion of the area inside the UDB. As a result of these amendments, the area inside the UDB has increased by more than 32,000 acres. Notwithstanding the various amendments that have been made to the CDMP, its overall approach, focus and direction have remained essentially the same since 1975. Since 1975, the CDMP's policies have "encourage[d] in-filling, redevelopment, and contiguous development in order to lessen urban sprawl and the associated transportation and energy costs." For years, the CDMP has required the coordination of development with services, the protection of agriculture as a viable economic use of land, the encouragement of a broad spectrum of housing allowing for choice of location, the protection of communities from encroachment by incompatible uses, and a wide variety of other goals, objectives and policies which remain the foundation of the CDMP. The 1988 CDMP In December 1988, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 88-110 entitled "The Master Plan Amendatory Ordinance" (Amendatory Ordinance). The Amendatory Ordinance revised and reformatted the CDMP in an effort to comply with changes made to the state's growth management laws in 1985. The CDMP's primary planning horizon was extended by the Amendatory Ordinance to the year 2000. Like the current version, the version of the CDMP adopted in 1988 (1988 CDMP) had an statement of legislative intent and the following eleven separate elements, containing goals, objectives and policies and other textual material, as well as maps depicting future conditions, including a future land use map: land use; traffic circulation; mass transit; port and aviation; housing; conservation; water, sewer and solid waste; recreation and open space; coastal management; intergovernmental coordination; and capital improvements. Prior to the adoption of the Amendatory Ordinance, the County's Planning Department prepared a "support component," containing background data and analyses, for each of the foregoing elements. These "support components" were used in the formulation of the 1988 CDMP and they were transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for the Department's consideration during the compliance review process. The 1988 CDMP: Land Use Element "Support Component" The "support component" for the 1988 CDMP land use element (LUSC) was a 232-page document that analyzed existing and future land uses in Dade County, including the amount of land that would be needed and available to accommodate anticipated growth, the County's projected population, the environmental characteristics of the County's undeveloped land, the availability of urban services in the County, and those areas in need of redevelopment. According to the LUSC, as of 1985, of the County's 1,413,629 acres, 86,111.5 acres (6.09%) were devoted to residential uses, 9,389.1 acres (.66%) were devoted to commercial uses, 770.3 acres (.05%) were devoted to hotels, motels and other transient uses, 15,128.9 acres (1.07%) were devoted to industrial uses, 8,967.6 acres (.63%) were devoted to institutional uses, 660,620.7 acres (46.73%) were devoted to parks and recreational open space, 5/ 69,091.3 acres (4.89%) were devoted to transportation, communications and utilities, 93,187.6 acres (6.59%) were devoted to agriculture, 18,268.9 acres (1.29%) were inland waters, 162,640.0 acres (11.51%) were coastal waters, and 289,453.2 acres (20.48%) were undeveloped or vacant. Of this undeveloped or vacant land, 149,823.5 acres (10.55%) were environmentally sensitive. The LUSC examined the pattern of growth in Dade County over the years and reported that, in the 1970's and 1980's, growth occurred primarily in the unincorporated area on the western fringe of the urbanized portion of the County. According the LUSC, this pattern of growth is anticipated to "persist throughout the remainder of this century and beyond." This projection was accompanied by the following explanation: Urban development opportunities are limited on the coastal ridge and on the barrier islands because there is little remaining developable land. It is on the western fringes that land is available. In Dade County these western growth areas extend from the Broward line to the farm lands and open areas of South Dade. With respect to what the future holds for the "urban interior," the following was stated: In the County's urban interior, its central city areas, growth will be modest or nonexis- tent. In most of these areas there is little remaining developable land and projected de- clines in average household size will offset whatever new development occurs. The Downtown area . . . is projected to show some modest gains in the 1990s and beyond, as downtown development efforts succeed in attracting more residents to the County's heart. The LUSC also contained an analysis performed by the Planning Department of the supply of vacant land available for development and the demand that would exist for such land on a countywide and sub-area basis during the planning period. 6/ In determining the supply of land available for residential development, the Planning Department considered the development potential of only vacant and agricultural land inside the UDB, as it existed prior to the adoption of the 1988 CDMP (pre-1988 UDB). Neither redevelopment opportunities, nor the residential capacity of land outside the pre-UDB, were taken into consideration. For each tract of vacant and agricultural land inside the pre- 1988 UDB, the Planning Department ascertained the number of units that would be able to be built, employing a methodology that was described as follows in the LUSC: This determination is based on the current [pre-1988] CDMP Land Use Plan density classi- fication, with numerous exceptions: In areas where no neighborhood or municipal plan has been adopted since the CDMP map classification was established for the parcel, existing zoning is used if greater than agricultural use (AU) or general use (GU). Where the existing zoning is used and land is zoned and platted for single family use, the development capacity of this land is determined by counting the vacant platted lots. In addi- tion, whenever the density of zoned land is further limited by covenants or approved site plans, those conditions are reflected. Where land is unplatted and zoned for estate den- sity residential, but is designated on the CDMP in a higher residential density category and is substantially surrounded by land that is zoned or designated for higher residential density, the land is assigned the density of the surrounding development. Similarly, small parcels zoned AU or GU are assigned a zoning classification comparable to surrounding de- velopment. AU and GU parcels 10 acres or larger are assigned the Plan density appli- cable to the area. In places where neighbor- hood or municipal plans have been adopted or completed since the CDMP classification was established for the parcel and the neighborhood or municipal plan shows a higher use or den- sity, the neighborhood or municipal plan density is used in estimating the development capacity. In instances where the existing zoning permits greater development than the neighborhood or municipal plan proposes, the zoned density is utilized. The gross supply for each area is discounted by a factor of 6 percent to reflect the finding that 6 percent of land in fully developed areas is typically vacant at any given time. The methodology employed by the Planning Department to determine the supply of land available in the County to accommodate growth is professionally accepted. To determine the demand that would exist for residential land during the planning period, the Planning Department first estimated the 1985 countywide population and then projected what the countywide population would be in the years 2000 and 2010. In so doing, it utilized a component methodology, which examined the three components of population change --births, deaths and migration. This methodology is professionally accepted. The Planning Department also made population estimates and projections for each of the minor statistical areas (MSAs) in the County. In making these estimates and projections, it used an extrapolation methodology that is professionally accepted. 7/ Pursuant to this methodology, a portion of the countywide projected population was allocated to each MSA based upon such factors as long- term subarea growth trends, estimates of current subarea population and existing subarea housing units, and subarea development capacity. The Planning Department estimated that the 1985 countywide population was 1,771,000 and it projected that the countywide population would be 2,102,000 by the year 2000 and 2,331,000 by the year 2010. Its population estimates and projections for MSA 6.1 and MSA 6.2, which collectively comprise an area of the County on the western urban fringe known as West Kendall, and MSA 7.2, which is part of the South Dade area of the County, were as follows: 1985- MSA 6.1: 76,961; MSA 6.2: 36,820; MSA 7.2: 32,791; year 2000- MSA 6.1: 135,932; MSA 6.2: 94,628; MSA 7.2: 44,127; year 2010- MSA 6.1: 162,611; MSA 6.2: 124,414; MSA 7.2: 52,518. It was noted in the LUSC that the West Kendall area was the "fastest growing part of Dade County in the 1970's and early 1980's" and that this area was "projected to account for about 38% of the County's growth" from 1985 to 1990. MSA 7.2 was described in the LUSC as among the "rapidly developing areas" of the County. The countywide and MSA population estimates and projections made by the Planning Department not only appeared in the LUSC, but they were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and included in the future land use element of the 1988 CDMP. After making these population estimates and projections, the Planning Department sought to ascertain the future demand for new housing in the County. As it explained in the LUSC: This projection is a function of the projected population increase. The methodology assumes that the mix of housing units in that area will remain as it is currently and that house- hold sizes will decline slowly. Residential unit requirements are derived from the pro- jected increase in households with a 5 percent allowance for vacancy of dwelling units. The Planning Department projected that countywide demand would be 9,150 total units annually until 1990, 10,731 total units annually between 1990 and 1995, 10,983 total units annually between 1995 and the year 2000, 11,449 total units annually between the year 2000 and the year 2005 and 11,734 total units annually between the year 2005 and the year 2010. For MSA 6.2 and 7.2, the Planning Department's demand projections were as follows: MSA 6.2- 1,498 total units annually until 1990, 1,739 total units annually between 1990 and 1995, 1,630 total units annually between 1995 and the year 2000, 1,453 total units annually between the year 2000 and the year 2005, and 1,288 total units annually between the year 2005 and the year 2010; MSA 7.2- 269 total units annually until 1990, 309 total units annually between 1990 and 1995, 332 total units annually between 1995 and the year 2000, 360 total units annually between the year 2000 and the year 2005, and 373 total units annually between the year 2005 and the year 2010. Having projected future housing demand, the Planning Department then compared the projected demand to the supply of available residential land and concluded that, assuming no additional residential capacity was added, there was a sufficient aggregate supply of single-family and multifamily housing units inside the pre-1988 UDB to accommodate projected growth until the year 2008. 8/ With respect to MSA 6.2 and MSA 7.2, the Planning Department concluded that the former had sufficient residential capacity to last until the year 2001 and that the latter's supply of residential land would be depleted a year earlier. Notwithstanding its conclusion that there was a sufficient supply of residential land inside the pre-1988 UDB to last until the year 2008, the Planning Department recommended that the 1988 version of the CDMP provide even more residential capacity within the UDB. 9/ It explained its position on the matter as follows in the LUSC: [The urban development boundary] contains sufficient capacities to sustain single family development until 2004 and multi-family development until 2014. However, it is recognized that decisions regarding the development and purchase of residences involve complexities that trans- cend the single consideration of the presence of vacant zoned land. Market conditions, neighborhood pressure, transportation or service deficiencies, and investment deci- sions can impede development of vacant parcels. 10/ The proposed land use plan for 2000 and 2010 includes substantially more additional land than indicated above to insure that no short- ages will occur. . . . [T]he proposed LUP map for 2000 and 2010 in- cludes capacities for an additional 23,590 single family-type dwelling units in the area located between the 1990 urban development boundary of the comprehensive plan LUP map which is currently in effect, and the pro- posed year 2000 UDB of the proposed plan map. The Planning Department also inventoried the supply of land available for industrial and commercial development in the County. As reported in the LUSC, it determined that, as of 1985, the County had almost a 50-year supply of industrial land and a 16.6-year supply of commercial land. It further determined, and reported in the LUSC, that, as of 1985, MSA 6.2 had a 5.1-year supply of commercial land and a 92.5-year supply of industrial land and that MSA 7.2 had a 10.1-year supply of commercial land and a 48.7-year supply of industrial land. The 1988 CDMP: Compliance Review and Stipulated Settlement Agreement The 1988 CDMP was submitted to the Department of Community Affairs for its review. On January 30, 1989, the Department issued its statement of intent to find the 1988 CDMP not "in compliance." The Department's objection to the plan concerned the low level of service standards the plan established for certain roadways. The Department subsequently, by petition, referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Thereafter, the Department and County entered into a stipulated settlement agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the County was to make certain changes to the 1988 CDMP to satisfy the concerns expressed by the Department in its statement of intent. The changes involved the 1988 CDMP's capital improvements element and its traffic circulation element. The County was to amend the capital improvements element to incorporate the primary components of the County's existing concurrency management system. The traffic circulation element was to be amended to establish three geographical zones or "tiers." One of the zones, the area inside the UDB east of the Palmetto Expressway (N.W. 77th Avenue), was to be denominated the "Urban Infill Area." 11/ The level of service standards for roadways in the Urban Infill Area were to be lower than those for roadways in the other two zones. Although these level of service standards for roadways in the Urban Infill Area were extremely low, and may have been unacceptable under other circumstances, it was felt that they were necessary, at least on a temporary basis, to promote infill development and encourage the use of mass transit, including the County's rapid rail system, which is underutilized. The agreement provided that if the County made these changes, the Department would find the 1988 CDMP, as amended in accordance with the agreement, "in compliance" and would recommend to the Administration Commission that the compliance proceeding that had been initiated by the Department be dismissed without the imposition of any sanctions. The County made the changes described the settlement agreement by adopting Ordinance No. 90-37. On June 14, 1990, the Department published its notice of intent to find the 1988 CDMP, as amended by Ordinance No. 90-37, "in compliance." This finding was made notwithstanding that the LUSC indicated that there was enough land inside the pre-1988 UDB to accommodate residential development well beyond the year 2000 and there had been, as a result of the Amendatory Ordinance's westward extension of the UDB and its redesignation of certain lands inside the realigned UDB, an addition to the existing supply of land available for residential development. The 1989-1990 CDMP Amendment Application Cycle A total of 71 applications to amend the CDMP were filed during the 1989-1990 CDMP amendment application cycle (Amendment Cycle). Twenty-seven of these applications were filed by private citizens as authorized by County ordinance. The remaining applications were filed by the Planning Department. Of the 27 privately filed applications, 25 requested changes to the FLUM and two requested changes to the text of the CDMP's land use element. The Planning Director filed a like number of applications to amend the FLUM. Application 39 Among the privately filed applications was Application 39, which was submitted by John H. Wellenhofer. The subject of Application 39 was a 25-acre parcel of land owned by Wellenhofer (Wellenhofer's property). Wellenhofer's property is in Study Area G and MSA 6.2. It is bounded on the north by Southwest 116th Street, on the south by Southwest 118th Street, on the east by Southwest 142nd Avenue and on the west by Southwest 144th Avenue. The property was located near, but inside, the UDB as established by the 1988 CDMP (1988 UDB). Through Application 39, Wellenhofer requested that the land use designation of his property on the FLUM be changed from "industrial and office" to "low density residential" (up to six dwelling units per gross acre). Application 39 and the Tamiami Airport The southern boundary of Wellenhofer's property lies two blocks, or approximately 660 feet, to the north of Tamiami Airport. The Tamiami Airport, which was opened in 1967, serves as a general aviation reliever for Miami International Airport. Tamiami is 1,380 acres in size and is the busiest general aviation airport in the County. The aircraft that use Tamiami are light aircraft, principally single and twin propeller driven airplanes. Tamiami does not, and in any event is not equipped to, handle commercial aircraft. Tamiami has three runways: (1) the north runway (9L-27R), an east- west runway; (2) the south runway (9R-27L), a parallel east-west runway; and the diagonal runway (13-31), a northwest-southeast runway. The north runway, which is the runway closest to Wellenhofer's property, lacks facilities to permit navigation by instrument for flights at night or in inclement weather. The flight pattern for the north runway is an oval shape. Wellenhofer's property is not under any portion of this flight pattern, nor is it under the flight patterns for the other two runways. It lies in the center of the oval created by the flight pattern for the north runway. It should be noted, however, that there are instances where aircraft, for one reason or another, deviate from these flight patterns. Residential communities in the vicinity of Tamiami already exist. A recent proposal to lengthen the south runway was opposed by a large number of the residents of these communities. In the face of such opposition, no action was taken on the proposal. Because of the noise generated by airport operations, residential uses in the area surrounding an airport may be incompatible with those operations. 12/ The CDMP recognizes that there is the potential for such land use incompatibility. It mandates that the federal government's 65/75 LDN contour standard contained in 14 C.F.R., Part 150, be used to determine if a particular residential use in the vicinity of an airport would be incompatible with the operations at that airport. The noise contour at 65 LDN for the north runway at Tamiami does not leave the airport property and barely leaves the runway itself. That is not to say, however, that one standing on Wellenhofer's property cannot hear the sound of aircraft using the airport. Wellenhofer's property is separated from Tamiami by land that is designated on the FLUM for "industrial and office" use. An identical 660 foot, "industrial and office" buffer separates the airport from the residential lands that lie to the south of the western end of the airport. The area immediately to the north, to the south and to the east of Tamiami is denominated an "employment center" in the CDMP. Accordingly, a substantial amount of land in this area, particularly to the east of the airport, has been designated on the FLUM for "industrial and office" use. Land immediately to the west of the site of current airport operations at Tamiami is designated on the FLUM for "transportation-terminals" use. Immediately west of this land is a large expanse of land, outside the UDB, which is designated on the FLUM for "agriculture" use. The CDMP's port and aviation facilities element indicates that "future aviation facility improvements are proposed to be made on or adjacent to the sites of existing airports" in the County and that the "westward 1,900 foot extension of the southern runway at Tamiami Airport" is one such proposed improvement that will be the subject of future consideration. Application 40 Another application filed by a private applicant during the Amendment Cycle was Application 40. It was submitted by the Suchmans. The subject of Application 40 was 320 acres of land (Application 40 property) located in Study Area G and MSA 6.2 and bounded on the north by Southwest 136th Street, on the south by Southwest 152nd Street, on the east by Southwest 157th Avenue and the Black Creek Canal, and on the west by Southwest 162nd Avenue. This land was located outside, but contiguous to on the north and east, the 1988 UDB. Immediately to the north of the Application 40 property is land that is shown on the FLUM as part of the western end of the Tamiami Airport. The CSX railroad tracks run parallel to the southern perimeter of the airport and they bisect the Application 40 property. The land immediately to the east of the Application 40 property which is north of the railroad tracks is designated on the FLUM for "industrial and office" use. The land immediately to the east of the Application 40 property which is south of the railroad tracks is designated on the FLUM for "low density residential communities" use. The land immediately to the south and the west of the Application 40 property is designated on the FLUM for "agriculture" use. At the time of the filing of Application 40, the area immediately surrounding the Application 40 property was undeveloped and in agricultural use. By the time of the formal hearing in the instant case, however, residential development was underway on a portion of the land immediately to the east of the Application 40 property which is south of the railroad tracks. Further to the east is a large scale residential development known as "Country Walk." The Suchmans own 190 acres of the Application 40 property. All but 30 acres of the land they own is on the western side of the property. The Suchmans first acquired an interest in the property in 1973 or 1974. They are in the real estate business and they purchased the property for investment purposes. While the Suchmans are not involved in the agricultural business, over the years they have leased their land to tenants who have used it for agricultural purposes. Since about 1987, it has become increasingly difficult, albeit not impossible, for the Suchmans to find such tenants. At least up until the time of the formal hearing in the instant case, their property was being actively farmed. The Suchmans, through Application 40, originally sought to have the land use designation of the Application 40 property north of the railroad tracks changed from "agriculture" to "industrial and office" and to have the land use designation of the remaining 280 acres of the property changed from "agriculture" to "low density residential." 13/ Subsequently, at the final adoption hearing, they amended their application. The Suchmans' amended application sought redesignation only of that land within the boundaries of the Application 40 property that the Suchmans owned: the western 20 acres of the Application 40 property north of the railroad tracks (from "agriculture" to "industrial and office" use); and 170 acres of the remaining land (from "agriculture" to "low density residential"). Under the amended application, the 130 acres of the Application 40 property not owned by the Suchmans was to remain designated for "agriculture" use. 14/ In addition to seeking the redesignation of their land, the Suchmans' application, in both its original and amended form, requested that the 1988 UDB be extended to encompass all 320 acres of the Application 40 property. Application 47 Application 47 was also filed by a private applicant. It was submitted by Alajuela N.V. The subject of Application 47 was an 160-acre tract of land (Application 47 property) located in Study Area I and MSA 7.2 and bounded by Southwest 264th Street on the north, Southwest 272nd Street on the south, Southwest 157th Avenue on the east and Southwest 162nd Avenue on the west. This land was located outside, but contiguous to on the south and east, the 1988 UDB. Immediately to the south and to the east of the Application 47 property is land designated on the FLUM for "estate density residential communities" use (up to 2.5 dwelling units per gross acre). The land immediately to the north and to the west of the Application 47 property is designated "agriculture" on the FLUM. Through its application, Alajuela N.V. requested that the land use designation on the FLUM of the Application 47 property be changed from "agriculture" to "estate density residential" 15/ and that the 1988 UDB be extended to encompass this property. Alajuela N.V. owns the entire western half of the Application 47 property. The eastern 80 acres is divided into a number of parcels, the majority of which are under five acres, with different owners. The eastern half of the Application 47 property contains 15 acres of Dade County pine forest. The Application 47 property lies approximately three-quarters of a mile both to the west and north of the U.S. 1 corridor in South Dade, which, according to the LUSC, "[s]ince 1970 . . . [has] experienced particularly heavy development and intensification of land use." This puts it on the southern fringe of an area of South Dade known as the Redlands. While the boundaries of the Redlands are not precise, it is generally understood to range from Southwest 184th Street on the north to the urbanizing areas of the City of Homestead on the south and from U.S. 1 on the east to a meandering line on the west where predominantly mixed agricultural and residential uses end and large-scale agricultural operations generally uninterrupted by residential development begin. While there is significant agricultural activity in the Redlands, primarily involving grove and nursery operations, 16/ an increasing residential trend has been established, particularly on the urbanizing fringes of the area and on parcels less than five acres in size that, because of the grandfathering provisions of the CDMP, are not subject to the restriction imposed by the CDMP that lands designated for "agriculture" use not be used for residential development in excess of one unit per five acres. Residential developments lying south of the Application 47 property constitute the urbanizing area of the City of Homestead. Homestead is a CDMP- designated activity center and, according to the LUSC, it was the fastest growing municipality in Dade County during the period from 1970 to 1987. Homestead's northern jurisdictional limits lie approximately two miles south of the Application 47 property. A substantial portion of the land between the Application 47 property and Homestead is presently undeveloped. The Application 47 property is approximately four and one half miles, by road, from the Homestead Air Force Base, a CDMP-designated employment center. Also in proximity to the Application 47 property are the Homestead/Florida City Enterprise Zone; the Villages of Homestead, which is a 7,000 acre development of regional impact; and commercial and industrial development along the U.S. 1 corridor in South Dade. 17/ The land immediately surrounding the Application 47 property is currently being used primarily for agricultural purposes, however, there is also residential development, as well as vacant land in the area. The western half of the Application 47 property is presently in active agricultural use. The eastern half of the Application 47 property is also the site of agricultural activity. Unlike the western half of the property, however, the eastern half is not used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Residences are located in this half of the property. Other Applications of Note Application 58, which was filed by the Planning Department, sought an amendment to the text of the land use element which would allow new agricultural uses in utility easements and right-of-way areas inside the UDB. Application 62 was another application filed by the Planning Department. Through Application 62, the Planning Department sought to have the Board of County Commissioners update and revise the countywide and MSA population estimates and the MSA population projections for the years 2000 and 2010 that had been adopted as part of the CDMP's land use element in 1988. In Application 62, the Planning Department recommended that the 1985 countywide and MSA population estimates found in the CDMP be replaced by 1989 estimates, including the following: countywide- 1,894,999; MSA 6.1- 92,715; MSA 6.2- 50,841; and MSA 7.2- 33,511. With respect to the population projections adopted in 1988, the Planning Department requested that they be modified to reflect a different distribution of the projected countywide population. The proposed modifications, as they pertained to MSA 6.1, MSA 6.2 and MSA 7.2, were as follows: year 2000- MSA 6.1: 137,612; MSA 6.2: 89,404; MSA 7.2: 42,012; year 2010- MSA 6.1: 175,504; MSA 6.2: 124,380; MSA 7.2: 53,823. In making these modified projections, the Planning Department utilized the same professionally accepted methodology it had used to make the projections that had been adopted in 1988. The Planning Department did not propose in Application 62 that any material change be made to the year 2000 or the year 2010 countywide population projections. A third application filed by the Planning Department was Application This application sought to have the Board of County Commissioners amend the text of the land use element to provide for the establishment of Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TNDs) by the adoption of land use regulations. Under the proposed amendment, TNDs, designed to provide a mix of employment opportunities, to offer a full range of housing types, and to discourage internal automobile use, among other objectives, would be permitted in areas designated for residential use on the FLUM. Planning Department's Preliminary Recommendations Report On August 25, 1989, the Planning Department prepared, for the benefit of the Board of County Commissioners, and published a two-volume report (PR Report) containing its initial recommendations on the 71 applications filed during the Amendment Cycle, as well as the background information and analyses upon which those recommendations were based. In its PR Report, the Planning Department analyzed, among other things, the amount of land that was needed and available to accommodate anticipated growth. In conducting its analysis, the Planning Department employed essentially the same, professionally accepted methodology, previously described in this Recommended Order, that it had used in 1988. The population estimates and projections upon which it relied were the updated and revised estimates and projections that were the subject of Application 62. The Planning Department estimated that in 1989 the County's residential capacity was 247,438 total dwelling units (134,333 single-family units and 113,105 multifamily units). Countywide demand was projected to be 9,157 total dwelling units a year from 1989 to 1995, 10,920 total dwelling units a year from 1995 to the year 2000, 11,440 total dwelling units a year from the year 2000 to the year 2005, and 11,601 total dwelling units a year from the year 2005 to the year 2010. Under this scenario, in the year 2010, there would remain a residential capacity of 22,689 total dwelling units. According to the Planning Department's analysis, this remaining countywide residential capacity would be depleted in the year 2012 (depletion year). The Planning Department forecast an earlier depletion year, 2009, for single-family units. In addition to analyzing countywide residential capacity, the Planning Department conducted an analysis of the amount of land that was available in the County for commercial and industrial development. The Planning Department's analysis revealed that the County had sufficient commercial capacity to last until the year 2008 and that it had sufficient industrial capacity to last until the year 2041. The Planning Department analyzed residential, commercial and industrial capacity, not only on a countywide basis, but on a subarea basis as well. This subarea analysis yielded the following forecast as to Study Areas G and I and MSAs 6.2 and 7.2: Study Area G- depletion year for residential land: year 2005 (all dwelling units), year 2006 (single-family units), and year 2005 (multifamily units); depletion year for commercial land: year 2003; and depletion year for industrial land: year 2076. Study Area I- depletion year for residential land: year 2019 (all dwelling units), year 2016 (single-family units), and year 2030 (multifamily units); depletion year for commercial land: year 2015; and depletion year for industrial land: year 2091. MSA 6.2- depletion year for residential land: year 2006 (all dwelling units), year 2002 (single-family units), and year 2025 (multifamily units); 18/ depletion year for commercial land: 1995; and depletion year for industrial land: year 2075. MSA 7.2- depletion year for commercial land: year 2009; and depletion year for industrial land: year 2078. In its PR Report, the Planning Department also surveyed the environmental, physical and archaeological/historic conditions in each study area of the County, with particular emphasis on the lands that were the subject of the various applications to amend the FLUM (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "application properties"). The PR Report noted that Study Area G, "a large area (approx. 81 sq. mi.) located along the westerly fringe of southwestern Dade County," was characterized by the following environmental, physical and archaeological/historical conditions: Study Area G encompasses the western portions of the Snapper Creek (C-2), C-100 and Black Creek (C-1) canal drainage basins. Natural ground elevations range from five to six feet msl in the northwestern portion of the area to ten to fifteen feet in the part of the Study area generally south of SW 120 Street. Similarly, there is a gradient in the soil conditions from the NW to the SE. In the NW quarter of the area, generally west of 144 Avenue and north of Kendall Drive, the limerock substrate is covered with seasonally flooded Everglades peats and mucks. The southern and eastern three quarters of the study area is generally characterized by well drained rocklands interspersed with poorly drained marls in the former transverse glades. Where organic soils exist, they must be re- moved prior to filling to meet County flood criteria. Therefore as much as four feet of fill may be required to meet the County cri- teria in the northwestern part of this area. The average groundwater table elevations range from above five feet in the northwest to four feet in the southeast. Therefore, the area of Bird Drive and much of the area north of Kendall Drive west of SW 137 Avenue has tradi- tionally experienced considerable flooding and drainage problems. * * * Approximately 70 percent (5,522 acres) of the Bird Drive Basin is vegetated with native wet- land wet prairie, shrub and tree island habi- tats. However, 3,083 acres are heavily or moderately invaded by the exotic tree, Malaleuca. In 1987 the County initiated a Special Area Management Planning (SAMP) pro- cess for this area to develop a wetlands miti- gation plan and funding proposals that will facilitate development in some portions of the Bird Drive Everglades Basin. The poten- tial presence of a new 140-million gallon per day (mgd) Biscayne Aquifer water wellfield in the western part of the Bird Drive Basin has made the feasibility of on-site wetland miti- gation highly questionable for the Basin area. Therefore, the County is exploring several off-site mitigation options as part of the SAMP. Proposals to develop in this Basin are presently constrained by language in the adopted components of the CDMP which tie de- velopment orders to the conclusion of the SAMP, unless the applicants can demonstrate vested rights. * * * In the portion of the study area south of Kendall Drive, the most significant environ- mental resources are stands of native pinelands. There are several environmentally sensitive pinelands in Study Area G, however, none of the properties included in applications 34-4 contain significant natural, historical o archaeological resources. . . . Table 1G of the PR Report contained the following information regarding the specific environmental, physical and archaeological/historic characteristics of Wellenhofer's property and the Application 40 property: Wellenhofer's Property: Soils- rockdale/rockland; drainage characteristics of soils- good; elevation: eight feet; drainage basin- C-100; wetlands permits required- none; native wetland communities- none; natural forest communities- none; endangered species- none; within wellfield protection area?- no; archaeological/historic resources- none. The Application 40 Property: Soils- rockdale, marl; depth of organic soils (marl)- one foot; drainage characteristics: good; elevation: eight feet; drainage basin: Black Creek Canal; wetlands permits required- none; native wetland communities- none; natural forest communities- none; endangered species- none; within wellfield protection area?- no; archaeological/historic resources- none. The environmental, physical and archaeological/historic characteristics of Study Area I, "a large (approx. 164 sq. mi.) region of south Dade County," were described as follows in the PR Report: Study Area I includes portions of CDMP Envi- ronmental Protection Subarea A, Biscayne National Park; Subarea D, the C-111 Wetlands; Subarea E; the Southeast wetlands; and Subarea F, Coastal Wetlands and Hammocks. These areas have been so designated because they contain important, relatively unstressed high-quality wetlands, which provide important water quality and wildlife values. Study Area I also includes a large part of CDMP Open Land Subarea 5. In most of the area east of Krome Avenue and west of U.S. 1, natural ground elevations range from ten to fifteen feet msl on the ridge and from five to ten feet in the former sloughs. The area east of the Turnpike and south of Florida City is less than five feet mean sea level. The highest average groundwater levels are at or above the ground surface throughout most of the area east of the Turnpike Extension and south of Florida City. Saltwater intrusion in the Aquifer extends two to five miles inland in this low lying area. In the area west of the Turnpike and east of Levees-31N and 31W, the soils are rocklands except in the former sloughs where marls pre- dominate. East of the Turnpike and south of Florida City, marls are the dominant soil type except along the coast where peats occur. The Black Creek (C-1), C-102, Mowry (C-103), North Canal, Florida City and C-111 canal sys- tems drain much of the northern and eastern portion of this study area. The area east of the Turnpike has recurring flooding and drainage problems due to its low elevation and flat gradient. The western portions of the C-102, C-103 and much of the C-111 drainage basins have limited flood protection. There is no flood protection in the area south of the Florida City Canal east of US 1 or in most of the area west of US 1 and south of Ingraham Highway. . . . * * * This study area also includes most of the environmentally sensitive natural forest com- munities that remain in Dade County. Appli- cation 47 contains a 15-acre pineland which presently receives maximum protection because it is outside the UDB and zoned AU. At the most, 20 percent of the pineland could be re- moved under the provisions of Chapter 24-60 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. . . . Table 1I of the PR Report contained the following additional information regarding the specific environmental, physical and archaeological/historic characteristics of the Application 47 property: Soils- rockland; drainage characteristics of soils- good; elevation: eleven to twelve feet; drainage basin- C-103; wetlands permits required- none; native wetland communities- none; endangered species- none; within wellfield protection area?- no; archaeological/historic resources- none. The PR Report also provided general information regarding existing land uses within each study area and more detailed information regarding existing land uses within and adjacent to each application property. The following was said with respect to existing land use patterns within Study Areas G and I: Study Area G- About half of this study area is suburban in character while the other half is primarily agriculture or undeveloped. The study area also contains a special agricul- tural area known as "horse country" for eques- trian related activities. The urbanizing portion is primarily residential with support- ing commercial and industrial activities. Residential areas include a range of housing from detached, single dwelling units to attached, multiple dwelling units at medium density. The area also contains two major recreation facilities-- Metrozoo and a county park. The major concentration of commercial activities has occurred along major thoroughfares such as North Kendall Drive. Some industries and offices are clustered in the vicinity of Tamiami Airport, a major general aviation facility located in the study area. Study Area I- This study area includes var- ious types of agricultural activities and rural development as well as suburban develop- ment largely oriented to US 1. The suburban development is primarily residential with supporting commercial uses. Although most of the housing is detached, single dwelling units, residential areas also include attached, multiple dwelling units at medium density. There are also several districts for industries and offices, some of which are oriented to expressway and railway systems. More than half of this study area is used for agriculture or is undeveloped. Much of the area is floodplain and the eastern fringe is subject to coastal flooding. Some of these areas are used for parks, preserves and water management areas. The area also contains several wellfields for public water supply, which are located inland from the coast and a major military installation-- Homestead Air Force Base. The PR Report stated the following with respect to the existing land uses within and adjacent to Wellenhofer's property, the Application 40 property and the Application 47 property: Wellenhofer's Property: The area, which con- tains 25 acres, is being used for agricultural purposes. Land located in the vicinity to the south and west is also being used for agriculture while zoned IU-C. The land on the north side is being developed for residential purposes. Boys Town home is located immediately to the west. The site is located one quarter mile north of Tamiami Airport. . . . The Application 40 Property: The area, which contains 320 acres, is being used for agricul- tural purposes. . . . Land in the vicinity on all four sides is also being used for agriculture. Tamiami Airport is located to the northeast of this site. The Application 47 Property: Most of the land in this area is being used for agriculture. The remainder is being used for rural residences or is vacant. The vacant parcels are zoned for agriculture (AU). Land in the vicinity on all sides has the same character. It is primarily agriculture with scattered rural residences or vacant parcels. These vacant parcels are also zoned for agri- culture (AU). The PR Report examined not only existing land use patterns, but future development patterns as well. The future development pattern set forth in the 1988 CDMP for Study Areas G and I were described in the PR Report as follows: Study Area G- The future land use pattern adopted for this area provides primarily for continued residential uses at low, and low-medium densities, with industrial and office development bordering the Tamiami airport. Nodes of commercial uses are pro- vided for at certain major intersections cen- trally located to serve the resident popula- tion. The western portions of the Study Area are slated for continued agricultural produc- tion, while the extreme northwest corner of the Area is designated as Open Land to pro- tect the West Wellfield. Study Area I- The future development pattern established for this area provides for mixed residential infilling (primarily estate, low density and low-medium-density, with some medium-high density located along SW 200 Street east of US 1). Commercial infilling is provided for along both sides of US 1 and along SW 312 Street. Major industrial areas are established south of SW 312 Street and west of 142 Avenue, west of SW 177 Avenue in the Homestead-Florida City area, north and south of 248 Street west of US 1 and south of SW 184 Street between US 1 and the HEFT [Homestead Extension to the Florida Turnpike]. The areas outside of, but contiguous to, the year 2000 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) are, for the most part, designated Agriculture, with land to the south and east designated as Open Land graduating to Environmental Protec- tion designations further south. . . . The PR Report also contained an evaluation of the current and future condition of public services in each study area, including an analysis, where possible, of each application's impact on these services. The public services addressed were roadways, transit, schools, parks, water, sewer, solid waste, and fire and rescue. The projected impacts of Applications 39, 40 (in its original form) and 47 on roadways were described as follows in the PR Report: Application 39: [Application 39 will result] in reduced peak hour trips affecting the year 2010 network in this [study] area. None of the roads within the area of this application were projected to operate worse than LOS D in the year 2010. Application 40: Due to its proximity to SW 177 Avenue, the combined 1422 peak hour trips generated by this amendment primarily impact SW 177 Avenue, which is already projected to operate at LOS F. The long term adopted standard for this road is LOS C. Even without this application the road does not meet this adopted standard. Application 47: Application 47 . . . if de- veloped would generate approximately 171 residential based peak hour trips in 2010. . . . Generally, this application would have negligible impacts on the LOS traffic conditions in 2010. The projected impacts of Applications 39, 40 (in its original form) and 47 on transit were described as follows in the PR Report: Applications 39 and 40: In general, no signi- ficant amount of transit trips would be generated by the amendment applications in this Study Area [G], even though a number of the applications (i.e. . . . 39, 40, ) are located in areas projected to have service improvements by 2010. Therefore, no additional service improvements are warranted beyond those that will be required to serve the area in general for 2010. Application 47: [N]o significant amount of transit trips would be generated by Applica- tion . . . 47. The projected impacts of Applications 39, 40 (in its original form) and 47 on schools were described as follows in the PR Report: Applications 39 and 40: It is estimated that the applications [in Study Area G] would in- crease the student population by [a total of] 2,784 students. . . . Application 40 would generate 874 additional students; . . . The other applications for residential use [including Application 39] would generate less than a hundred new students each. Application 47: If Application 47 were ap- proved, it would generate an additional 239 students at all grade levels. The greatest impact would be felt at the elementary school level, where an additional 129 students would have to be accommodated. Redland Elementary, which is the elementary school that would pro- bably serve the subject Application Area, is operating at a utilization rate of 163 percent. Additional classrooms are planned for construc- tion at Redland Elementary over the next few years, raising this school's number of Exist- ing Satisfactory Student Stations (ESSS) from 523 to 901. In addition, a relief school for Redland Elementary is to be built in this area by mid-1993, providing an additional 885 SSS. The projected impacts of Applications 39, 40 (in its original form) and 47 on parks were described as follows in the PR Report: Applications 39 and 40: Study Area G cur- rently meets the park level of service stan- dard (LOS) and is expected to meet the LOS in the year 2000. . . Despite the rapid popula- tion growth in the area, the LOS has remained above standard in part because of recreational facilities and open space that are provided in the planned residential developments which characterize the Study Area. Approval of those applications requesting new residential uses in Study Area G could result in a lowering of the LOS for parks if new park land is not provided. Application 47: By the year 2000, MSA 7.2 is expected to fall below standard if no addi- tional parks are provided. * * * Application 47 lies within MSA 7.2 which is currently above the LOS standard but is expected to fall below standard if no addi- tional park land is provided. The PR Report indicated that the fire and rescue response times to Wellenhofer's property, the Application 40 property and the Application 47 property were four minutes, 13 minutes, and three to four minutes, respectively, and that roadway accessibility to all three sites was good. With respect to the Application 40 property, the PR Report further noted that it "would be serviced by the planned Richmond Station after its completion in 1992-93," which would reduce the response time to the site to no more than six minutes. Water and sewer service in Study Areas G and I was described as follows in the PR Report: Study Area G: Water and sewer service is provided to Study Area G by WASAD [Metro- politan Dade County Water and Sewer Authority Department]. The area is characterized by large residential developments which have been built over the past decade. Water and sewer service was constructed by area devel- opers in many cases, and most of the developed area is served. . . . . [T]he 'Horse Country' area west of the Turnpike is not connected to either water or sewer. Potable Water Supply Water is supplied to Study Area G by WASAD's Alexander Orr Water Treatment Facility. This facility's current design rating is 178 MGD, and the historical maximum day water demand has been 146 MGD. . . . The Orr facility currently produces water which meets all federal, state and county drinking water standards. WASAD has recently made improve- ments to the Alexander Orr facility and devel- oped a long term expansion program. By 1990, it is expected that the plant will attain a rated capacity of 220 MGD. A major improvement to the distribution system in this Study Area is the completion of the 36/48 inch main which extends along SW 137 Avenue from SW 122 Street to SW 184 Street. In conjunction with other improvements, the system in this area is being connected to the South Miami Heights and the Orr Treatment Plants, providing adequate capacity for the southern portion of Study Area G. Improvements that are scheduled for 1989-90 include the extension of the 36 inch water main along Kendall Drive to SW 157 Avenue, and continued construction of the 96 inch raw water main that will deliver water from the new West Wellfield to the Alexander Orr Treat- ment Plant. Sewer Study Area G is served by the South District Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility. This facility has a current design capacity of 75 MGD. Based on a 12-month running average daily flow for this plant was 75 MGD. . . . Expansions to the South District facility are programmed for completion in 1994 to increase the design capacity to 112.5 MGD. Sewage effluent produced by this plant also conforms to federal, state and county effluent standards and is disposed of via deep well injection. Study Area I: Most of Study Area I is in agri- cultural use and relies primarily on private wells and septic tanks. WASAD serves the devel- oped areas in unincorporated Dade County. Florida City provides water service within the city limits and sewer service is provided by WASAD. A portion of the study area is also served by the City of Homestead. Homestead's franchised service area extends a short dis- tance outside the City limits: it is bounded irregularly on the East, on the West by SW 192 Avenue, by the City limits on the South, and on the North by SW 296 Street. Water distri- bution and sewage collection systems are main- tained by the Air Force to serve Homestead Air Force Base. Potable Water Supply The northeast corner of the Study Area is con- nected to WASAD's regional water supply system and is served by the Alexander Orr Treatment Plant. . . . [T]he served area south of SW 248 Street is not yet connected to the regional system. This area is served by the former Rex Utility system, which is now owned by WASAD, and by the City of Homestead. The Rex system has a rated capacity of 16.2 mgd and a maximum water demand of 8.81 mgd. The Homestead plant has a rated capacity of 9.9 mgd and a maximum demand of 7.7 mgd. . . . Water produced by these treatment plants meets federal, state, and county drinking water standards. A major improvement scheduled for this area is a 48 inch main which will run south along SW 127 Avenue from 248 Street to SW 280 Street to connect the existing systems to the Alexander Orr Treatment Plant. Upon completion of this main in 1990 or 1991, the . . . treatment plants of the Rex system will be phased out. . . . Sewer Florida City and the unincorporated portion of Study Area I are served by the South District Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility, which has a current design capacity of 75 mgd and an average daily flow of 84.2% of rated capacity. Expansions to the South District facility, programmed for completion in 1994, will increase the design capacity to 112.5 mgd. Sewage effluent treated by this plant conforms to the federal, state and county effluent stan- dards and is disposed of via deep-well injection. . . . The only remaining sewage treatment plant in Dade County is operated by the City of Homestead. The plant is designed to treat 2.25 mgd and its capacity is in the process of being evaluated by the Florida Department of Environmental Regula- tion. The Homestead system currently operates under an agreement to divert a portion of its wastewater to WASAD for treatment and disposal. . . . The following was indicated in the PR Report concerning the water and sewer service available to Wellenhofer's property, the Application 40 property and the Application 47 Property: Wellenhofer's property: distance to nearest water main- 1320 feet; diameter of this main- 12 inches; location of this main- SW 112th Street and SW 142nd Avenue; distance to nearest sewer main- 4000 feet; location of this main- SW 112th Street and SW 137th Avenue. The Application 40 Property: distance to nearest water main- 0 feet; diameter of this main- 24 inches; location of this main; SW 152nd Street and SW 157th Avenue; distance to nearest sewer main- one mile; location of this main- SW 136th Street and SW 147th Avenue. The Application 47 Property: distance to near- est water main- 2640 feet; diameter of this main- 12 inches; location of this main- SW 157th Avenue and 280th Street; distance to nearest sewer main- 3960 feet; location of this main- SW 157th Avenue and SW 284th Street. 19/ The significance of the availability of water and sewer service to a particular application property was described as follows in the PR Report: Although specific requirements under Chapter 24 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County vary with land use, most new development in Dade County is required to connect to the public water or sewer system, or to both. The timing of new development is heavily depen- dent on the availability of these services. Where water and sewer service does not exist and is not planned, the services may be pro- vided by the developer. When construction is completed, the facilities are donated to the utility. The proximity of an application area to exist- ing or programmed water and sewer lines is an important indicator of whether or not the area is likely to develop within the 2000 time frame of the Urban Development boundary. . . . The following observations were made in the PR report regarding solid waste services in the County: The Metro-Dade Department of Solid Waste Management provides both collection and dis- posal services for Dade County. The Department is responsible for the final dis- posal of solid waste generated anywhere in the County and for residential collection in the urbanized portions of unincorporated Dade County. Residents in sparsely developed areas of the County are responsible for delivering their waste to a proper disposal site. In general, industrial and commercial businesses often use private haulers who can provide customized service that is not available from the County. . . . Countywide, the solid waste disposal system has sufficient capacity to maintain the adopted level of service of 7 pounds per person per day through 1995. The Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC) The Board of County Commissioners took preliminary action on the applications filed during the Amendment Cycle and transmitted to the Department its proposed amendment to the CDMP. Accompanying the proposed amendment was the PR Report. The Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC) on February 2, 1990. A copy of the ORC, accompanied by a cover letter, was sent to the Mayor of Metropolitan Dade County, the Honorable Stephen P. Clark, that same day. The cover letter advised the Mayor that if he "would like the Department to participate in the public hearing for amendment adoption, such request should be received by the Department, certified mail, at least 14 days prior to the scheduled hearing date." The following were the statements made in the ORC that referenced Applications 39, 40 and 47: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OBJECTIONS * * * Analysis 1. 9J-5.006(2)(b) The analysis of the character of the existing vacant or undeveloped land in order to deter- mine its suitability for use does not support the plan amendments that propose to extend the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) by 845 acres. The analysis demonstrates that the UDB as cur- rently delineated ensures an adequate supply of each land use will be available for the planning timeframe. In addition, the existing analysis identifies this region as environmen- tally sensitive and not suitable for urban uses. Recommendation Revise the plan amendments to retain the UDB as currently delineated in the adopted Metro-Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) or include analysis that would justify extension of the UDB for urban uses while not causing adverse impacts to the environmentally sensitive lands in the East Everglades Area. 2. 9J-5.006(2)(c)2. The analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, as re- vised in Amendment 62, does not support plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 which propose to extend the UDB by an additional 845 acres. The analysis demonstrates that there is ade- quate amount of land uses designated within the current UDB to accommodate the projected population within the planning timeframe. Therefore, the extension of the UDB into the East Everglades area would encourage urban sprawl. Recommendation Revise the plan amendments to be consistent with the analysis. The plan amendments must justify the proposed need for additional land outside of the current UDB to accommodate the projected population. 3. 9J-5.006(2)(e) The analysis of the proposed development of flood prone areas does not support plan amend- ments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 which would extend the UDB by 845 acres. The new growth would be directed into the flood prone areas on the eastern edge of the Everglades. . . . Recommendation Revise the plan amendments to not extend the UDB and to either retain the existing land uses or designate land uses that are compat- ible with the environmentally sensitive nature of . . . the Everglades region. Goals, Objectives and Policies 4. 9J-5.006(3)(b)1. Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47, which would extend the UDB by 845 acres, are incon- sistent with Objective 1, page I-1, which states that decisions regarding the location of future land use in Dade County will be based on the physical and financial feasibility for providing services as adopted in the CDMP. The analysis demonstrates that the County has not planned on providing services outside the existing UDB; therefore the extension of the UDB at this time would appear to be premature. Recommendation Revise the amendments to retain the UDB as currently delineated in the CDMP. * * * 8. 9J-5.006(3)(b)7. Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47, which would extend the UDB by 845 acres, are incon- sistent with Objective 3, page I-4, which states that the urban growth shall emphasize concentration around centers of activity rather than sprawl. The analysis of the land needed to accommodate the projected population demonstrates that there will be an adequate supply of vacant land within the UDB for the duration of the planning timeframe. Recommendation Revise the amendments to retain the UDB as currently delineated in the CDMP. * * * 12. 9J-5.006(3)(c)3. Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47, which would extend the UDB by 845 acres, are incon- sistent with Policy 1B, page I-1, which states that the County will first provide services for the area within the UDB. The amendments are located outside of the existing UDB and the analysis demonstrates that there is no need to extend the UDB for residential or industrial land uses. Recommendation Retain the UDB as currently delineated. * * * Future Land Use Map(s) 14. 9J-5.006(4)(a) Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 which entail the extension of the Urban Development boundary are not supported by the data and analysis. The designation of residential uses is not supported by the analysis which shows an adequate supply of residential land for the planning timeframe. . . . These ex- tensions would be premature according to the data and analysis submitted with the plan amendments and would increase development pressure toward the Everglades. Recommendation Retain the Urban Development Boundary as cur- rently delineated. Encourage new residential development in the Urban Infill Area where the infrastructure already exists to support higher densities and where the CDMP has speci- fically made commitments to direct development in order to discourage urban sprawl and to pro- tect the environmental integrity of the Ever- glades. * * * PORTS, AVIATION AND RELATED FACILITIES A. OBJECTIONS * * * Goals, Objectives and Policies 1. 9J-5.009(3)(c)1. Plan amendments 38 and 39, which would change industrial/office land use to low density resi- dential, are inconsistent with Policy 4C, page IV-4, which supports zoning that would protect existing and proposed aviation flight paths. These amendments would promote the encroachment of residential land uses into the Tamiami Airport area guaranteeing a future conflict of land uses. Recommendation Retain the existing land uses or propose land uses that would be compatible with the existing airport and the surrounding supporting aviation industries. * * * SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, DRAINAGE, POTABLE WATER, AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS Goals, Objectives, and Policies 1. 9J-5.011(2)(b)3. Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 which entail the extension of the Urban Development boundary are inconsistent with Objective 1 and Policy 1A, page VII-1, which state that the area within the UDB shall have first priority for urban services as a measure to discourage urban sprawl. The designation of residential uses is not supported by the analysis which shows an adequate supply of residential land for the planning timeframe. . . . These extensions would be premature according to the data and analysis submitted with the plan amendments and would increase development pressure toward the Everglades. Recommendation Retain the Urban Development boundary as cur- rently delineated. Encourage new residential development in the Urban Infill Area where the infrastructure already exists to support higher densities and where the CDMP has speci- fically made commitments to direct development in order to discourage urban sprawl and protect the environmental integrity of the Everglades. The ORC also addressed the proposed plan amendment's consistency with the State of Florida Comprehensive Plan (State Plan) and the Regional Plan for South Florida (Regional Plan), which was prepared and adopted by the South Florida Regional Planning Council. The following was alleged with respect to the proposed amendment's consistency with the State Plan: STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.021 The proposed Comprehensive Development Master Plan amendments are not consistent with and fail to address adequately the following sub- sections of s. 187.201, F.S. (1988 Supplement), State Comprehensive Plan policies: Housing (5)(b)3., which requires the supply of safe, affordable and sanitary housing for low and moderate income persons and the elderly, because the proposed amendments would change existing residential uses, that would be feasible for affordable housing, to non-residential uses; and Water Resources (8)(b)4., which requires the protection and use of natural water systems in lieu of struc- tural alternatives and restore modified sys- tems, because the proposed amendments would create land uses which would encroach upon wellfield protection areas; and Coastal and Marine Resources (9)(b)4., which requires the protection of coastal resources, marine resources, and dune systems from the adverse effects of develop- ment, because of the proposed amendment to change definitions which would give residen- tial densities to submerged marine lands; and Natural Systems and Recreational Lands (10)(b)7., which requires the County to pro- tect and restore the ecological functions of wetland systems to ensure their long-term environmental, economic and recreational value, because the proposed amendments would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area and potentially permit noncompatible land uses within wetland study areas and wellfield pro- tection areas; and (10)(b)8., which requires promotion of res- toration of the Everglades system and of the hydrological and ecological functions of de- graded or substantially disrupted surface waters, because of the proposed amendment which would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area; and Land Use (16)(b)2., which requires incentives and dis- incentives which encourage a separation of urban and rural land uses, because the pro- posed amendments would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area which would encourage urban sprawl; and Public Facilities (18)(b)1., which requires incentive for devel- oping land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities, because the pro- posed amendments would remove residential uses along arterials and reduce the effectiveness of the mass transit system. The ORC contained the following recommendation concerning what needed to be done, in the Department's view, to cure these alleged inconsistencies: The proposed comprehensive plan amendments must be revised to include specific, measur- able objectives and implementing policies, supported by adequate data and analysis, that are consistent with the above-referenced poli- cies of the State Comprehensive Plan. The following was alleged in the ORC concerning the proposed amendment's consistency with the Regional Plan: REGIONAL POLICY PLAN CONSISTENCY OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.021(1) The proposed Comprehensive Development Master Plan amendments are not consistent with and fail to address adequately the following subsections of the Regional Plan for South Florida: Policy 57.1.2., which requires giving priority to development in areas within which adequate services are either programmed or available, because of the proposed amendments which would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area; and Policy 64.2.1, which requires that land use around the airport be strictly controlled to prevent unnecessary social or economic con- flicts and costs, because of the proposed amendments which would place residential uses in close proximity to Tamiami Airport; and Policy 69.1.1., which encourages appropriate activities to ensure the continued viability of agriculture, because the proposed amend- ments which would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area. The ORC contained the following recommendation concerning what needed to be done, in the Department's view, to cure these alleged inconsistencies: The proposed comprehensive plan amendments must be revised to include specific, measur- able objectives and policies, supported by adequate data and analysis, that are consis- tent with the policies of the Regional Plan for South Florida. Under the heading of "Internal Consistency" in the ORC, the following remarks were made: INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.005(5)(b) Each map depicting future conditions in the plan (including the future land use map) must reflect goals, objectives and policies in each element, as those goals, objectives and policies exist or are modified to meet the requirements of Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., Chapter 163, F.S., the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, F.S.) and the comprehensive regional policy plan, as recommended in this report. Recommendation Ensure that future conditions maps are modi- fied to reflect goals, objectives and policies in each element. COMMENTS See individual elements. Those objections, recommendations and comments made in the ORC that are not recited above specifically referenced applications other than Applications 39, 40 and 47. The Planning Department's Response to the ORC On March 21, 1990, the Planning Department published a written response to the ORC (Response). In its Response, the Planning Department concurred with the position that Applications 39, 40 and 47 should not be approved, but it took issue with certain statements made in the ORC relating to these applications. The Planning Department pointed out that the "East Everglades was the area located west of the L-31 Everglades containment levee and south of the Tamiami Trail," and that "[A]pplications [18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 we]re no closer than two miles [to the east] of the East Everglades" and did not extend to any areas designated "environmental protection" on the FLUM. The Planning Department further noted that the Application 40 property and the Application 47 property were not subject to recurring flooding. With respect to the lone objection in the ORC which specifically mentioned Application 39, the Planning Department observed that it "incorrectly cite[d] Policy 4C [of the Port and Aviation Facilities Element of the CDMP]; it should be Policy 4D." The Planning Department added that, although the Department had not so indicated, Application 39 was "also inconsistent with Objective 8 of the Port and Aviation Element which seeks to maximize compatibility between airports and the surrounding communities." Combined Recommendations of the Planning Department and the PAB On February 27, 1990, and February 28, 1990, respectively, following a joint public hearing held on February 23, 1990, the Planning Department, acting in its capacity as the local planning agency, and the PAB adopted resolutions containing their recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the final action to be taken on the applications filed during the Amendment Cycle. Thereafter, prior to the final adoption hearing, the Planning Department published a document entitled "Combined Recommendations of the Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department (Local Planning Agency) and the Planning Advisory Board" (CR Report), which set forth these recommendations, and summarized the rationale upon which they were based. Both the Planning Department and PAB recommended that Application 39 be denied. According to the CR Report, these recommendations were based upon the following considerations: The south boundary of this site is located only two blocks from the Kendall-Tamiami Execu- tive Airport. The application area is within the area designated on County comprehensive plans as industrial/commercial since 1965 to insure airport/community compatibility. The continued non-residential designation of this area also conforms to the standard adopted in 1989 by the State Legislature (but vetoed by the Governor because of unrelated funding pro- visions) which provided that "residential construction should not be permitted within an area contiguous to an airport measuring one-half of the length of the longest runway on either side of each runway centerline." The Aviation Department estimates that the housing proposed in the application area would be subject to more than ten times ambient noise levels which would result in many complaints from occupants. For example, virtually all of the 5,200 petitioners concerned about perceived airport noise impacts of the recently rejected runway extension lived further from the airport than would the occupants of housing proposed within the area. Approval of this application would conflict with the need for the County to protect its airport, and with the need to retain opportunity sites for employment activities in west Kendall. The Planning Department recommended that Application 40 be denied. According to the CR Report, this recommendation was based upon the following considerations: This Application is located in the Agri- cultural area west of Black Creek Canal. The Agricultural Land Use Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners established that Canal as the Agricultural area boundary in this area of the County, to be amended for urban development only at such time as there is a documented need. The Planning Department believes that the need does not yet exist. 20/ Approval of this Application would be premature. The CDMP currently contains within the year 2000 Urban Development Boundary (UDB), enough land countywide to sustain projected industrial needs well beyond the year 2010, and residential needs to the year 2015. Within this Study Area there is also enough industrial land to accommodate projected residential growth beyond the year 2010 and to accommodate projected residential growth until the year 2005. While current projections indicate that the single family supply west of the Turnpike between Kendall Drive and Eureka Drive does not contain much surplus beyond the year 2000, the CDMP provides alternative loca- tions, including an abundance of supply in the Turnpike corridor south of Cutler Ridge. The Planning Department will closely monitor growth trends in the various subareas of the County and will recommend adjustments when warranted in the future. The PAB recommended that Application 40 be approved. The CR Report indicated that the PAB's reasoning with respect to this matter was as follows: Because this is the area where people want to live, sprawl is justified and the urban devel- opment boundary should be expanded. In re- sponse to DCA's objections, the PAB noted that services are available adjacent to this Appli- cation. Both the Planning Department and PAB recommended the denial of Application 47. The following reasons were given in the CR Report for their recommendations: The area is currently designated Agricul- ture on the Land Use Plan map, and is used for agricultural purposes. The Agricultural Land Use Plan adopted by the Board of County Commis- sioners recommends that the area designated Agriculture should not be redesignated for urban use until there is a documented need for more urban land. Approval of this Application would be very premature. The CDMP currently contains enough land within the year 2000 Urban Development Boundary in this Study Area to accommodate projected demand well beyond the year 2010. Similarly, in the area west of US 1 there is enough land for single-family type residences to accommodate projected demand through the year 2010. There is no current need to promote urban development of this Application area. This site contains fifteen acres of Dade County pine forest listed in Dade County's forest land inventory as having high environ- mental quality. It should not be prematurely urbanized. The Final Adoption Hearing: The Department's Participation On March 12, 1990, Mayor Clark mailed, by United States Express Mail, a letter to the Department requesting that it participate in the hearing at which final action would be taken by the Board of County Commissioners on the outstanding applications filed during the Amendment Cycle. The body of the letter read as follows: The Board of County Commissioners requests that the Florida Department of Community Affairs participate in its hearing to address biennial applications requesting amendments to the 2000-2010 Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) for Metropolitan Dade County. This request is made pursuant to Section 9J-11.011(2) of the Florida Adminis- trative Code and Section 2-116.1(4) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. The public hearing will be held on Monday, March 26, 1990, at 9:00 AM in the Commission Chambers, 111 N.W. 1 Street, Miami. If neces- sary, this hearing will be continued on Tuesday, March 27, 1990, in the Commission Chambers. The purpose of this hearing is to afford the Board of County Commissioners an opportunity to hear the applicants explain their applica- tions and to receive public comments on the applications, on the "Objections, Recommenda- tions, and Comments" report submitted by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, and on the recommendations of the Planning Advi- sory Board and of the Local Planning Agency. At the conclusion of this hearing, the Board of County Commissioners will take final action to approve, approve with change, or deny each of the applications. Should you or your staff need any assistance or additional information regarding this hearing, please contact Mr. Robert Usherson, Chief, Metropolitan Planning Division, Metro-Dade Planning Department, at (305)375-2835, (Suncom) 445-2835. The Department, by letter, advised Mayor Clark that it would send a Department representative to "participate" in the hearing. The body of the letter read as follows: In response to your request of March 12, 1990, the Department of Community Affairs will send a representative to participate in the March 26, 1990, public hearing to adopt the proposed Metro Dade County comprehensive plan amendments. The Department's representative is authorized to restate our position as expressed in the Department's February 3, 1990 [sic] Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report, and to listen to all parties. It is the Department's position that the adoption public hearing is not the proper forum for modifying the Depart- ment's position or approving proposed revisions to the comprehensive plan. The Department's representative will be without authority to modify the Department's position or approve proposals discussed at the public hearing. The Department's representative will be authorized, however, to comment on proposals to resolve objections included in the report. Final approval of any proposal may only be granted by the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs. The Department's role with respect to approv- ing proposed revisions will begin upon adop- tion and submittal of the comprehensive plan, pursuant to Chapter 9J-11.011, Florida Admin- istrative Code. If I may be of further assis- tance in this matter, please contact me at (904)488-9210. The Department representative selected to attend the final adoption hearing was Harry Schmertman, a Planner IV with the Department. Schmertman had not been involved in the preparation of the ORC. He reviewed the report, however, before attending the hearing. Schmertman arrived at the Commission Chambers on the morning of March 26, 1990, prior to the commencement of the hearing. Upon his arrival, he spoke with the County's Planning Director and requested that he be recognized at the outset of the hearing. The Planning Director responded that "the Mayor would take care of that." Following this conversation, Schmertman took a seat "[a]pproximately five or six rows back [from the front] in the center of the auditorium." Thereafter, the hearing formally convened. Shortly after the commencement of the hearing, before any applications were discussed, Mayor Clark introduced Schmertman and indicated that he was attending the hearing on behalf of the Department. Immediately following the Mayor's introduction of Schmertman, the Chairman of the PAB, Lester Goldstein, presented the PAB's recommendations to the Board. During his presentation, Goldstein expressed disappointment over the various factual inaccuracies in the Department's ORC. Schmertman did not respond to Goldstein's comments, nor did he at any time attempt to modify or explain any statement or position taken by the Department in the ORC. Indeed, he made no public remarks while in attendance at the hearing. While Schmertman did not address the Board of County Commissioners at the hearing, at no time during the hearing was he asked to do so. Furthermore, the members of the Board gave no indication that they did not understand, and therefore needed clarification of, the Department's position on the applications under consideration. At around 4:30 p.m., before the conclusion of the hearing on that day, Schmertman left the Commission Chambers to return to Tallahassee. Neither he, nor any other Department representative, was present for the remainder of the hearing on that day or for the continuation of the hearing on the following day, when public discussion and debate ended and a formal vote was taken on each of the pending applications. 21/ Schmertman did not tell anyone that he was leaving the Commission Chambers. He reasonably believed, however, that there was no need to announce his departure because he was "in a very obvious location . . . and was very visible leaving." No member of the Board, nor any other County representative, asked Schmertman, as he was leaving, to remain until the conclusion of the hearing. The Final Adoption Hearing: The Objectors' Participation The Redland Citizen Association, Inc. (RCA) is a nonprofit Florida corporation, which has as its stated purpose and primary activity the preservation and promotion of the agrarian character and lifestyle of the Redlands area of South Dade. The RCA engages in fundraising to obtain the financial resources necessary to accomplish this objective. The RCA has approximately 700 to 800 members, all of whom reside in or around the Redlands in Dade County. At all times material hereto, Martin Motes has been a member of the RCA, resided in a home that he owns in the Redlands, and owned and operated a wholesale orchid nursery business located on property adjacent to his residence, three quarters of a mile north of the Application 47 property. Motes appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. On behalf of the RCA and its members, including himself, he expressed opposition to Application 47. He argued that the change sought through this application was "premature" and constituted an "unwarranted and unwanted" extension of urban development into a viable agricultural area. Neither Motes, nor any other representative of the RCA, objected to any application other than Application 47. 22/ The Sierra Club is a nonprofit national organization organized for the following purpose: To explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the earth, to practice and promote the re- sponsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources, to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment, and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives. The Sierra Club, Miami Group, is a local division of the national organization specifically chartered to include residents of both Dade and Monroe Counties. It has a Dade County address. At all times material hereto Bruce Rohde has been a member of the Sierra Club and resided in a home that he owns in Dade County. Rohde appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. On behalf of the Sierra Club and its members, including himself, he expressed opposition to Applications 40 and 47, among others. He contended that the extensions of the UDB requested through Applications 40 and 47 were "premature." Neither Rohde, nor any other representative of the Sierra Club, objected to Application 39. The League of Women Voters of the United States is a national organization. The League of Women Voters of Florida is a state organization. The League of Women Voters of Dade County, Inc. (League) is a nonprofit Florida corporation affiliated with the national and state organizations. The League's purpose, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation, is as follows: [T]o promote political responsibility through informed and active participation of citizens in government and to take action on govern- mental measures and policies in the public interest in conformity with the principles of The League of Women Voters of the United States and The League of Women Voters of Florida. It engages in fundraising to obtain the financial resources necessary to accomplish this objective. The League rents office space in Dade County out of which it conducts its operations. 23/ At all times material hereto, Carol Rist has been a member of the League, resided in a home that she owns in Dade County, and owned and operated a Dade County business. Rist appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. On behalf of the League and its members, including herself, she expressed opposition to various applications, including Applications 39, 40 and 47. With respect to Applications 40 and 47, her arguments were similar to those advanced by Rohde at the hearing. As to Application 39, she contended that Wellenhofer's property was too close to the airport to be used for residential purposes and that it was a desirable site for the location of an office complex to which residents of the West Kendall area would be able to commute. 24/ At all times material hereto, Evelyn B. Sutton has resided in a home that she owns in the eastern half of the Application 47 property. Sutton appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. She expressed her opposition to Application 47, contending that its approval would have an adverse impact upon the unique agrarian character and lifestyle of the Redlands. She did not object to any application other than Application 47. At all times material hereto, Frances L. Mitchell has resided in a home that she owns in the eastern half of the Application 47 property. Mitchell and some of her neighbors retained an attorney, who appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing and made a presentation on their behalf. The attorney advised the Board that his clients were in opposition to Application 47 because it was "premature" and represented unneeded "leapfrog residential development in the heart of the Redlands." Neither Mitchell, her attorney, nor any other representative acting on her behalf, objected to any application other than Application 47. At all times material hereto, Rod Jude has resided in a home that he owns in Dade County and owned and operated a Dade County wholesale nursery business. Jude appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. He expressed his opposition to Application 40, arguing that there was no demonstrated need for the conversion of the Application 40 property to non-agricultural uses. Jude also objected to Applications 37, 41 and 42. He did not address either Application 39 or Application 47. The Final Adoption Hearing: The Applicants' Participation Jeffrey E. Lehrman, Esquire, appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing and made a presentation in support of Application 39 on behalf of Wellenhofer. In addition to making an oral presentation, Lehrman gave the members of the Board written materials. During his presentation, Lehrman stated, among other things, the following: Application 39 represented infill, not leapfrog, development; such development would not adversely impact upon, nor would it be adversely impacted by, the Tamiami Airport; there had been significant residential development in the area around Wellenhofer's property in recent years; the approval of Application 39 would not interfere with any existing flight patterns; Wellenhofer's property was not under an existing flight path, but rather was in a "hole-in-the-doughnut" and therefore was distinguishable from properties that were the subject of other applications; Tamiami's north runway was an auxiliary runway unequipped to handle operations at night and in bad weather; the applicable 65/75 LDN noise contour did not intrude upon Wellenhofer's property; the new statute that the Planning Department had referenced in recommending denial of Application 39 had been vetoed by the Governor and therefore was really no statute at all; helicopter training took place on the south, rather than the north, side of the airport; and if Application 39 was approved, a buffer of industrial land would still exist between Wellenhofer's property and the airport. Thomas Carlos, Esquire, appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing and made a presentation in support of Application 40 on behalf of the Suchmans. Carlos was assisted by James Holland, a professional planner with the firm of Post, Buckley, Shuh and Jernigan (Post Buckley), Jack Schnettler, a professional traffic engineer with Post Buckley, Richard Tobin, President of Strategy Research Corporation, Inc. (SRC), a national research firm with offices in Florida, and Richard Roth, Vice- President of SRC in charge of planning research studies. During his opening remarks, Carlos advised the County Commission that the Suchmans had executed a covenant obligating themselves to developing their property in accordance with the Traditional Neighborhood Development concept. He then introduced Holland to the Commission. During his presentation, Holland did, among other things, the following: summarized the contents of Table 1G of the PR Report relating to the environmental, physical and archaeological/historic conditions that existed on the Application 40 property; contrasted the Application 40 property with the undeveloped lands in MSA 6.1 already within the UDB which, he argued, had marginal development potential because of undesirable environmental constraints; opined that, as a consequence of these impediments to development in MSA 6.1, MSA 6.2 would experience an increase in demand; showed a graphic depicting land use patterns in and around the Application 40 property, including the amount of land available for residential development in the area; displayed another graphic showing future Urban Services Areas in unincorporated Dade County, including the Tamiami area; in conjunction with the these graphics, argued that the residential development of the Application 40 property was in furtherance of the Tamiami area's designation as an employment center; quoted from a Planning Department report that suggested that development around the Tamiami Airport would reduce metropolitan transportation needs; asserted that the use of the Application 40 property for residential purposes would comply with federal guidelines as well as those found in the CDMP; in support of this assertion, presented a graphic illustrating that no part of the proposed residential portion of the Application 40 property would be included in the 65/75 LDN contours which measure the noise generated by airport operations; and described the urban services which were available or programmed to serve the Application 40 property. Jack Schnettler's presentation addressed traffic and transit issues. He presented a graphic showing the existing and programmed transportation network in the vicinity of the Application 40 property and highlighted particular improvement projects that he considered worthy of note. In describing the this transportation network, he commented that it augmented the employment center character of the area. Schnettler expressed the view that the property would be adequately served by transit and roadways. In addition, he disagreed with the Planning Department's forecast that approval of Application 40 would adversely impact upon the level of service on Southwest 177th Avenue, which, he noted, was located one and half miles to the west of the application property. Tobin and Roth briefly summarized a written report that SRC had prepared for the Suchmans and other private applicants (SRC Report). The report analyzed housing demand in the West Kendall area. The SRC Report concluded that the supply of residential land in MSA 6.2 25/ would be depleted in the year 2004 under a low case scenario, in 1998 under a medium case scenario, and in 1996 under a high case scenario, which the report opined, without explanation or reasonable justification, was "the one most likely to occur." As noted above, in its PR Report, the Planning Department had projected a depletion year of 2006, which the SRC Report criticized as being "out of touch with reality." In making its projections, SRC compared the yearly average of new housing units built and sold in MSA 6.2 from 1980 to 1984, which was a down period for the housing industry in Dade County, to the yearly average of new housing units build and sold in MSA 6.2 from 1985 to 1988, which was a boom period for the housing industry in the County. The information used by SRC regarding the number of housing units constructed and sold during these years was obtained from the Dade County Tax Assessor's office. Under the low case scenario, SRC assumed that housing demand in MSA 6.2 would remain constant at its 1985 to 1988 yearly average of 1,780 units. Under the medium case scenario, SRC assumed that the rate of housing demand would increase by about 35% over the 1985 to 1988 experience (which was 70% above the 1980 to 1984 experience). Under the high case scenario, SRC assumed that the 70% increase in housing demand between 1980 to 1984 and 1985 to 1988 would continue unabated until the supply of residential land was depleted, an assumption that is even more unrealistic than the assumptions underlying low and medium case scenarios. SRC reached these conclusions without analyzing housing demand on a countywide basis. Neither did it rely upon any population projections, notwithstanding that housing demand is driven by population growth. Furthermore, it did not take into consideration the cyclical fluctuations that characterize the housing market, nor did it account for vacant units in its projections. A professionally accepted methodology is one that is replicable, transparent, documented, free of error and inaccuracies, based upon assumptions that are clearly stated and reasonable and designed to avoid improbable and unlikely outcomes given past trends. In projecting housing demand for MSA 6.2., SRC did not utilize a methodology meeting these requirements. In addition to the oral presentations made by Carlos, Holland, Schnettler, Tobin and Roth, the Suchmans also presented to the Board of County Commissioners a written memorandum authored by Carlos and David S. Goldwich, Esquire, with attachments, including a copy of the SRC Report, copies of excerpts from Planning Department publications, and a copy of a recent article appearing in "New Miami Magazine," which reported that "Dade farmers, mostly by shifting production to new areas to the west actually increased total acres under tillage from 78,263 in 1981 to 84,534 in 1987" and that "Dade agricultural acreage [was] not expected to shrink substantially, despite encroachments by developers." The memorandum made many of the same arguments that were advanced by those who spoke on behalf of the Suchmans at the final adoption hearing. Robert Traurig, Esquire, appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing and made a presentation in support of Application 47 on behalf of Alajuela N.V. During his presentation, Traurig stated, among other things, the following: the Application 47 property was contiguous to the 1988 UDB; the failure to include the property within the UDB was an oversight that should be corrected; there was significant residential development surrounding the property in all directions; the area in which the property is located was an area in transition; it was changing from an agricultural area to one that was predominantly residential in character; as demonstrated by the recent development in the area, there was a demand for housing in this part of the County; most of the people who wanted to live in this area could not afford the five-acre estates allowed on property designated for "agricultural" use under the CDMP; the redesignation of the Application 47 property sought by Alajuela N.V. would not have an adverse impact on the agricultural industry in the County; such redesignation was not premature nor would it result in leapfrog development; there were no environmental impediments to the development of the Application 47 property; the elevation of the property was 11 feet above sea level and drainage was good; there were no wetlands on the site; the tree colony on the eastern half of the property would be protected by County ordinance; and there were roadways, parks, fire service and other urban services available to serve the property. The Final Adoption Hearing: The Aviation Director's Comments At the request of Commissioner Hawkins, Rick Elder, the County's Aviation Director, commented on four application properties in Study Area G that were in close proximity to the Tamiami Airport, including Wellenhofer's property. Elder stated that there were no flight patterns over Wellenhofer's property. With respect to noise, he noted that Wellenhofer's property was not within the 65/75 LDN contour. Elder did not indicate that he had any safety concerns regarding Application 39. The Final Adoption Hearing: Debate and Vote by the Board Following the conclusion of that portion of the final adoption hearing devoted to public discussion and debate on March 27, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners considered and voted on each of the pending applications. At the request of Commissioner Hawkins, the first application to be considered and voted on by the Board was the TND application, Application 71. The Board voted to approve Application 71. The remaining applications were considered and voted on in sequential order. During the Commissioners' debate on Application 39 and other applications in the vicinity of Tamiami Airport, Commissioner Gersten expressed the view that, with respect to these applications, neither noise nor safety should be a concern. Commissioner Schreiber concurred. Commissioner Valdes remarked that, although he was opposed to the other applications under consideration, he was not opposed to Application 39 because the property that was the subject of the application was not, according to Aviation Director Elder, under a flight pattern. Commissioner Dusseau indicated his opposition to Application 39. He argued that there was no need for residential development on Wellenhofer's property and that it was preferable to retain its "industrial and office" land use designation to further the creation of an activity center around the airport. Application 39 was approved by a five to three vote. When Application 40 came up for consideration, Commissioner Hawkins recommended that the application be modified. While he did not object to the extension of the UDB to include the Application 40 property, he suggested that only the application property owned by the Suchmans be redesignated for residential use. He explained that, not only would this modification eliminate concerns generated by the application regarding compatibility with airport operations, it would set the stage for the development of a TND in the West Kendall area. Commissioner Hawkins noted that the County Commission had long wanted to have a TND in this area and that the Suchmans were willing to develop their property as a TND if it was redesignated for residential use. Commissioner Dusseau responded to these comments by indicating that he favored the TND concept, but that he did not believe that the Suchmans property was where such a TND should be located. Application 40, as modified pursuant to Commissioner Hawkins' recommendation, initially failed to win approval on a tie vote. On the motion of Commissioner Winn, Application 40, as so modified, was reconsidered. On reconsideration, it was approved by a six to two vote. Application 47 was also approved by a six to two vote. Application 58, which proposed to allow new commercial agricultural uses within the UDB, and Application 62, with its revised population estimates and projections, were among the other applications that were approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. Of the applications seeking an extension of the UDB, only Applications 40 and 47 were approved. A total of 49 applications, either in their original form or as modified, were approved by the Board. The majority of these applications, like Applications 39, 40 and 47, sought to change one or more land use designations on the FLUM. Other approved applications, in addition to Applications 39, 40 and 47, that sought to have the Board of County Commissioners change a non- residential land use to a residential land use were Applications 12, 13, 14, 26, 28 and 44. 26/ Approximately 410 acres of land were redesignated on the FLUM from non-residential to residential land uses as a result of the approval of Applications 12, 13, 14, 26, 28, 39, 40, 44 and 47. Assuming that the properties that were the subject of these applications will be able to develop at the maximum residential densities indicated on the FLUM, these redesignations will have increased the supply of residential land in the County by approximately 1930 dwelling units. 208. The approval of Applications 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 14, 23, 27, 29, 45 and 46 resulted in the redesignation on the FLUM of approximately 115 acres of land from residential to non-residential land uses. Assuming that the properties that were the subject of these applications would have been able to develop at the maximum residential densities indicated on the FLUM, these redesignations may be said to have reduced the supply of residential land in the County by approximately 910 dwelling units. Applications 5, 6, 19, 22 and 24 sought to have land designated on the FLUM for "low density residential" use redesignated for "office/residential" use. Applications 8, 15 and 16 sought to have land designated on the FLUM "medium density residential" redesignated "office/residential." These eight applications were all approved. Approximately 105 acres of land were redesignated "office/residential" as a result of the approval of these eight applications. Assuming that the properties that were the subject of these applications would have been able to develop at their maximum pre-approval residential densities, as indicated on the FLUM, and further assuming that, after these redesignations, they will be developed as office sites exclusively, these redesignations may be said to have reduced the supply of residential land in the County by approximately 1960 dwelling units. If the assumption were made that these redesignated properties will experience both office and residential development 27/ and that the residential development will amount to one half the number of dwelling units that would have been constructed had the property not been redesignated, the reduction in the supply of residential land resulting from these redesignations instead would be 980 dwelling units. It is unlikely, however, that as many as 980 dwelling units will be built on these properties. There were other applications, in addition to those specifically mentioned above, that sought FLUM redesignations and were approved by the Board of County Commissioners, however, they involved a change from one non- residential land use to another non-residential land use and therefore did not have a direct impact on the supply of residential land in the County. When viewed collectively, the changes made by the Board of County Commissioners to the FLUM during the Amendment Cycle have not been shown to have resulted in any appreciable increase in the supply of residential land in the County as a whole. That is not to say, however, that the Board's actions did not serve to increase the supply of residential land in certain areas of the County. For instance, by virtue of its approval of Applications 40 and 47, the Board added to the supply of residential land on the urban fringe in Study Area G and Study Area I, respectively. Following its vote on each of the pending applications, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 90-28, which amended the CDMP in a manner consistent with Board's actions on these applications. (The CDMP, as so amended, will be referred to as the "1990 CDMP." Ordinance No. 90-28 will be referred to as the 1990 Plan Amendment.) The CDMP, as Amended by Ordinance No. 90-28: Key Provisions Statement of Legislative Intent The 1990 CDMP contains a Statement of Legislative Intent. It provides as follows: This Statement expresses the legislative in- tent of the Board of County Commissioners with regard to the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). This statement is applicable to the CDMP in its entirety and is declared to be incorporated by reference into each element thereof. Nothing in the CDMP shall be construed or applied to constitute a temporary or permanent taking of private property or the abrogation of vested rights as determined to exist by the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. The CDMP shall not be construed to preempt considerations of fundamental fairness that may arise from a strict application of the Plan. Accordingly, the Plan shall not be deemed to require any particular action where the Plan is incomplete or internally inconsistent, or that would constitute a taking of private property without due process or fair compensa- tion, or would deny equal protection of the laws. The CDMP is intended to set general guide- lines and principles concerning its purposes and contents. The CDMP is not a substitute for land development regulations. The CDMP contains long-range policies for Dade County. Numerous policies contained in the CDMP must be implemented through the County's land development regulations. Neces- sary revisions will be made to the County's land development regulations by the date required by Section 163.3202, FS. Other policies of the plan propose the establishment of new administrative programs, the modifica- tion of existing programs, or other administra- tive actions. It is the intent of Dade County that these actions and programs be initiated by the date that Dade County adopts its next Evaluation and Appraisal (EAR) report, unless another date is specifically established in the Plan. The CDMP is not intended to preempt the processes whereby applications may be filed for relief from land development regulations. Rather, it is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that such applications be filed, considered and finally determined, and that administrative remedies exhausted, where a strict application of the CDMP would contravene the legislative intent as expressed herein. The Board recognizes that a particular application may bring into conflict, and neces- sitate a choice between, different goals, prior- ities, objectives, and provisions of the CDMP. While it is the intent of the Board that the land use element be afforded a high priority, other elements must be taken into consideration in light of the Board's responsibility to pro- vide for the multitude of needs of a large heavily populated and diverse community. This is especially true with regard to the siting of public facilities. Recognizing that County Boards and agencies will be required to balance competing policies and objectives of the CDMP, it is the intention of the County Commission that such boards and agencies consider the overall intention of the CDMP as well as portions particularly applicable to a matter under consideration in order to ensure that the CDMP, as applied, will protect the public health, safety and welfare. The term "shall" as used in the CDMP shall be construed as mandatory, subject, however, to this Statement of Legislative Intent. The term "should" shall be construed as directory. The FLUM The FLUM is an integral part of the 1990 CDMP's future land use element. It shows the proposed distribution, extent and location of permitted land uses for the entire land area of Dade County and, in so doing, reflects the CDMP's goals, policies and objectives, to the extent possible. In addition to a year 2000 UDB, the FLUM also has a year 2010 Urban Expansion Area Boundary. There are 18 land use categories represented on the FLUM: estate density residential communities; low density residential communities; low-medium density residential communities; medium density residential communities; medium-high density residential communities; high density residential communities; industrial and office; restricted industrial and office; business and office; office/residential; institutional and public facility; parks and recreation; agriculture; open lands; environmental protection; environmentally protected parks; transportation; and terminals. The FLUM also depicts activity centers, expressways, major and minor roadways, levees, canals and other bodies of water. The following advisement is set forth on the face of the FLUM: This plan map is not a zoning map! Within each map category on this plan map, numerous land uses, zoning districts and housing types may occur. This plan map may be interpreted only as provided in the plan text entitled "Inter- pretation of the Land Use Plan Map: Policy of the Land Use Element." That text provides necessary definitions and standards for allow- able land uses, densities or intensities of use for each map category and for interpretation and application of the plan as a whole. That text must be interpreted in its entirety in interpreting any one plan map category, and no provision shall be used in isolation from the remainder. The land use plan map (LUP), in conjunction with all other adopted components of the Com- prehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP), will govern all development-related actions taken or authorized by Metropolitan Dade County. The LUP Map reflects municipal land use policies adopted in municipal comprehen- sive plans. However, this plan does not supersede local land use authority of incor- porated municipal governments currently auth- orized in accordance with the Metro-Dade Charter. For further guidance on future land uses authorized within incorporated municipal- ities, consult the local comprehensive plan adopted by the pertinent municipality. The Interpretative Text That portion of the 1990 CDMP entitled "Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map: Policy of the Land Use Element" (Interpretive Text) provides in pertinent part as follows with respect to the residential land use categories shown on the FLUM: Residential Communities The areas designated Residential Communities on the LUP map permit housing types ranging from detached single-family to attached multi- family structures including manufactured housing and mobile home parks. The residen- tial communities designations indicate the overall residential density for the area. Also permitted in residential communities, in keeping with the Plan's objectives and poli- cies, are secondary neighborhood and community serving uses such as schools, parks, and houses of worship. Some additional uses such as day care centers, foster care and group housing facilities and similar uses, and neighborhood serving institutional and utility uses may also be permitted in residential com- munities in keeping with the circumstances and conditions outlined in this section, and with the objectives and policies of this plan. * * * The Land Use Plan Map includes six residential density categories which are depicted on the Plan map by different symbols/colors. Each category is defined in terms of its maximum allowable gross residential density. Develop- ment at lower than maximum density is allowed and may be required where conditions warrant. For example, in instances where a large portion of the "gross residential acreage" is not a part of the "net" residential building area, the necessity to limit the height and scale of the buildings to that compatible with the sur- rounding area may limit the gross density. The categories do not have a bottom limit or min- imum required density; all categories include the full range of density from one dwelling unit per five acres up to the stated maximum for the category. . . . Estate Density. This density range is typi- cally characterized by detached estates which utilize only a small portion of the total par- cel. Clustering, and a variety of housing types may, however, be authorized. The maxi- mum density allowed in this category is 2.5 dwelling units per gross acre. Low Density. A larger number of units is allowed in this category than in the Estate density. The maximum density allowed is 6 dwelling units per gross acre. This density category is generally characterized by single family type housing, e.g., single family detached, cluster, zero lot line, and town- houses. It could possibly include low-rise apartments with extensive surrounding open space providing that the maximum gross den- sity is not exceeded. Low-Medium Density. This category allows up to 13 dwelling units per gross acre. The types of housing typically found in areas designated low-medium density include single family homes, townhomes, and low-rise apart- ments. Medium Density. This Density Category allows up to 25 dwelling units per gross acre. The type of housing structures typically permitted in this category include townhouses, low-rise and medium rise apartments. Medium-High Density. This category accommo- dates apartment buildings ranging up to 60 dwelling units per gross acre. In this cate- gory, the height of buildings, and therefore, the attainment of densities approaching the maximum, depends to a great extent on the dimensions of the site, conditions such as location and availability of services, ability to provide sufficient off-street parking, and the compatibility with, and impact of the development on surrounding areas. High Density. This category permits up to 125 dwelling units per gross acre. This den- sity is only found in a few areas located within certain municipalities where land costs are very high and where services will be able to meet the demands. * * * Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TNDs). Traditional neighborhood developments which incorporate a broad mixture of uses under specific design standards may also be ap- proved in Residential Communities in the manner specifically authorized in this sub- section. The purpose of the traditional neighborhood development is to enable the creation of new communities that offer social and architectural quality, characteristic of early American town planning. Many of these early models, developed prior to 1940, offer insight into the design of coherently planned communities. The concept is patterned after those inherent in these earlier developments and provides a design clarity through a hierarchy of streets, a focus towards pedes- trian activity, low scale community buildings and open squares as the focal point of the neighborhood. The County shall adopt land use regulations that incorporate the objectives of a traditional neighborhood development concept. . . 28/ Within areas designated on the LUP map as Res- idential Communities, a mixed use Traditional Neighborhood Development permitting business, office, industrial, artisanal, home occupa- tions, and other uses authorized by this subsection may be approved providing that the following criteria are met: The minimum contiguous land area is 40 acres and is not located within the Estate density category; and The site is under single-ownership at the time the master development plan or equivalent is approved; and Residential density does not exceed the density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, except that a maximum density of ten dwelling units per acre may be approved in the Low Density category; and Public open spaces such as squares or parks comprise a minimum of five acres or five percent of the developed area, whichever is greater; and Civic uses, such as meeting halls, schools, day care centers and cultural facilities com- prise a minimum of two percent of the developed area; and Business, office and industrial uses, that are separate from residential mixed uses do not exceed seven percent of the gross land area; and Where the TND borders or is adjacent to land that is designated Estate, Low Density or Low-Medium Residential and land so designated is used for residences or is vacant, the sep- arate business, office, and industrial uses identified in item No. 6 above, and those business, office, and industrial uses mixed with other uses shall not be permitted within 175 feet of the TND boundary and all non-residential components of such uses shall be acoustically and visually screened from said bordering or adjacent land; and when a TND borders land designated Agriculture or Open Land said business, office or industrial uses shall not be permitted within 330 feet of said TND boundary; and Residential, and residential uses mixed with shop-front, artisanal and home occupation uses comprise the remainder of the developed area; and In calculating gross residential density uses listed in item No. 6 shall be excluded, all other uses may be used to determine the maximum permitted density. The Interpretive Text provides that, with respect to the "office/residential" land use category, "[u]ses allowed in this category include both professional and clerical offices and residential uses." The following is stated in the Interpretative Text in pertinent part with respect to the "agriculture" land use category: Agriculture The area designated as "Agriculture" contains the best agricultural land remaining in Dade County. 29/ The principal uses in this area should be agriculture, uses ancillary to and directly supportive of agriculture such as packing houses on compatible sites, and farm residences. Uses ancillary to, and necessary to support the rural residential community of the agricultural area may also be approved, including houses of worship and local schools. In order to protect the agricultural industry it is important that uses incompatible with agriculture, and uses and facilities that support or encourage urban development are not allowed in this area. Residential development that occurs in this area is allowed at a density of no more than one unit per five acres. 30/ Creation of new parcels smaller than five acres for residential use may be approved in the Agriculture area only if the immediate area surrounding the subject parcel on three or more sides is predominantly parcelized in a similar manner, and if a division of the sub- ject land would not precipitate additional land division in the area. No business or industrial use should be approved in the area designated Agriculture unless the use is directly supportive of local agricultural production, is located on an existing arterial roadway, and has adequate water supply and sewage disposal in accordance with Chapter 24 of the County Code, and the development order specifies the approved use(s). Other uses compatible with agriculture and with the rural residential character may be approved in the Agriculture area only if deemed to be a public necessity, or if deemed to be in the public interest and no suitable site for the use exists outside the Agriculture area. Existing quar- rying and ancillary uses in the Agriculture area may continue operation and be considered for approval of expansion. Also included in the Agriculture area are enclaves of estate density residential use approved and grandfathered by zoning, owner- ship patterns and platting activities which predate this Plan. The grandfather provisions of Sections 33-196, 33-280, and 33-280.1 of the Dade County Code shall continue to apply to this area except that lots smaller than 15,000 square feet in area are not grandfathered hereby. Moreover, all existing lawful uses and existing zoning are deemed to be consistent with this Plan unless such a use or zoning: (a) is found through a subsequent planning study, as provided in Land Use Policy 5D, to be inconsistent with the foregoing grandfather provisions or with the criteria set forth below; and (b) the implementation of such a finding will not result in a temporary or permanent taking or in the abrogation of vested rights as deter- mined by the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. . . . Also deemed to be consistent with this Plan are uses and zoning districts which have been approved by a final judicial decree which has declared this Plan to be invalid or unconstitutional as applied to a specific piece of property. This paragraph does not, however, authorize the approval or expansion of any use inconsistent with this plan. To the contrary it is the intent of this Plan to contain and prevent the expansion of inconsistent development in the Agriculture area. Activity centers are described in the Interpretative Text as "high- intensity design unified areas which will contain a concentration of different urban functions integrated both horizontally and vertically." The Interpretative Text contains the following discussion regarding the UDB: Urban Development Boundary The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) is in- cluded on the LUP map to distinguish the area where urban development may occur through the year 2000 from the areas where it should not occur. Development orders permitting urban development will generally be approved within the UDB at some time through the year 2000 provided that level-of-service standards for necessary public facilities will be met. Adequate countywide development capacity will be maintained within the UDB by expanding the UDB when the need for such expansion is deter- mined to be necessary through the Plan review and amendment process. The CDMP seeks to facilitate the necessary service improvements within the UDB to accom- modate the land uses indicated on the LUP map within the year 2000 time frame. Accordingly, public expenditures for urban service and infrastructure improvements shall be focused on the area within the UDB, and urban infra- structure is discouraged outside the UDB. In particular, the construction of new roads, or the extension, widening and paving of existing arterial or collector roadways to serve areas outside the UDB at public expense will be per- mitted only if such roadways are shown on the LUP map and in the Traffic Circulation Element. The entire unincorporated area within the UDB is eligible to receive and utilize Severable Use Rights (SURs) in accordance with provi- sions of chapter 33-B, Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Accordingly, certain developments as specified in Chapter 33-B may be entitled to density or floor area bonuses as authorized by Chapter 33-B. No new commercial agricultural use of property may be established within the Urban Development Boundary, except on property designated Agri- culture on the LUP map or zoned AU (agricultural) or GU (interim). 31/ All property within the Urban Development Boundary not designated Agri- culture or zoned AU or GU shall not be permit- ted to be used for the establishment of any new commercial agricultural use. An additional exception is that land in utility easements or rights-of-way may be approved for new commercial agricultural uses where the use would be compat- ible with, and would have no unfavorable effect on, the surrounding area. Commercial agricultural uses include, without limitation, all uses of property associated with commercial horticulture; floriculture; viticulture; forestry; dairy; livestock; poultry; apiculture; pisciculture, when the property is used principally for the production of tropical fish; all forms of farm production; and all other such uses, except retail nurseries and retail greenhouses. Inci- dental agricultural use of property specifi- cally authorized by zoning which is otherwise consistent with the LUP map does not constitute commercial agriculture within the meaning of this provision. The Urban Expansion Area is described as follows in the Interpretative Text: The Land Use Map also contains a year 2010 Urban Expansion Area (UEA) Boundary. The UEA is comprised of that area located between the 2000 UDB and the 2010 UEA Boundary. The Urban Expansion Area is the area where cur- rent projections indicate that further urban development beyond the 2000 UDB is likely to be warranted some time between the year 2000 and 2010. Until these areas are brought within the year 2000 UDB through the Plan review and amendment process, they are allowed to be used in a manner consistent with the provisions set forth for lands designated as "Agriculture" or the applicable "Open Land" area. Urban infrastructure and services should be planned for eventual extension into the UEA, sometime between the years 2000 and 2010. However, if water or sewer lines or major roadway improvements are extended beyond the UEA in order to serve a necessary public facility that has been approved consistent with the Comprehensive Development Master Plan, these improvements should be sized or restric- ted to accommodate only the needs of the public facility. The significance of the UDB and UEA Boundary is explained in the Interpretative Text as follows: Critical in achieving the desired pattern of development is the adherence to the 2000 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) and 2010 Urban Expansion Area (UEA) Boundary. Given the fundamental influences of infrastructure and service availability on land markets and development activities, the CDMP has since its inception provided that the UDB serve as an envelope within which public expenditures for urban infrastructure will be confined. In this regard the UDB serves as an urban services boundary in addition to a land use boundary. Consistency with the CDMP will ensure that actions of one single-purpose agency does not foster development that could cause other agencies to respond in kind and provide facil- ities in unanticipated locations. Such uncoor- dinated single-purpose decision making can be fiscally damaging to government and can undermine other comprehensive plan objectives. The subject of plan amendments is also addressed in the Interpretative Text, which states the following on the subject: It is recognized that the development capacity of the area within the UDB and UEA will vary with time. Part of the supply will be util- ized and additional supply will be added from time-to-time through the approval of Plan Amendments. Some land will be built upon at densities which are higher than permitted by existing zoning because rezonings will occur in the future, and some development will occur at densities lower than that permitted by zoning. Moreover, impediments can arise to the utilization, at maximum potential densities, of all lands within the boundaries. In some urbanized areas, it may be difficult to acquire sufficiently large parcels of land. In other areas, neighborhood opposition to proposed developments could alter the assumed density or character of a particular area. Because the development capacity of the LUP map fluc- tuates with time, it will be reevaluated on a periodic basis as part of the Plan review and amendment process. The Interpretative Text enumerates the following as the "long- standing concepts embodied in Dade County's CDMP:" Control the extent and phasing of urban development in order to coordinate development with programmed provision of public services. Preserve and conserve land with valuable environmental characteristics, recreation uses, or scenic appeal. Encourage development in areas most suit- able due to soil conditions, water table level, vegetation type, and degree of flood hazard. Restrict development in particularly sensitive and unique natural areas. Maximize public ownership of beaches and shorelands within the Coastal Area to insure their preservation, conservation or public use. Minimize consumption of energy for trans- portation purposes and the amount of air pol- lution from transportation sources by encour- aging a more compact urban form. Shape the pattern of urban development to maximize the efficiency of existing public facilities and support the introduction of new public facilities or services such as improved mass transit systems. Preserve sound and stable residential neighborhoods. Rejuvenate decayed areas by promoting redevelopment, rehabilitation, infilling, and the development of activity centers containing a mixture of land uses. Promote development of concentrated activity centers of different sizes and char- acter to provide economies of scale and effi- ciencies of transportation and other services for both the public and private sectors. Redirect higher intensity development towards activity centers of areas of high countywide accessibility. Allocate suitable and sufficient sites for industrial and business districts to accommodate future employment needs. Prohibit new residential development and other noise sensitive activities from locations near airport noise impact zones. Avoid excessive scattering of industrial or commercial employment locations. Encourage agriculture as a viable economic use of suitable lands. The Goal and Selected Objectives and Policies of the Future Land Use Element The following is the goal of the future land use element (FLUE) of the 1990 CDMP: Provide the best possible distribution of land use, by type and density, to meet the physical, social, cultural and economic needs of the present and future resident and tourist popu- lation in a manner that will maintain or improve the quality of the natural and man-made environ- ment and amenities, and ensure the timely and efficient provision of services. The following are among the objectives and policies found in the 1990 CDMP's FLUE: Objective 1 Decisions regarding the location, extent and intensity of future land use in Dade County, and urban expansion in particular, will be based upon the physical and financial feasi- bility of providing, by the year 2000, all urbanized areas with services at Levels of Service (LOS) which meet or exceed the minimum adopted in the Capital Improvements Element. Policies 1A. All development orders authorizing new, or significant expansion of existing urban lands uses, shall be contingent upon the pro- vision of services at the Levels of Service (LOS) which meet or exceed the LOS standards specified in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE). Metro required by Chapter 163.3202, Florida Statutes (F.S.), implement the requirements of Section 163.3202(2)(g), F.S. 1B. Priority in the provision of services and facilities and the allocation of financial re- sources for services and facilities in Dade County shall be given first to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of the Land Use Plan (LUP) map. Second priority in allocations for services and facilities shall support the staged development of the Urban Expansion Area (UEA). * * * Objective 3 The location and configuration of Dade County's urban growth from 1989 through the year 2010 shall emphasize concentration around centers of activity, renewal and rehabilitation of blighted areas, and contiguous urban expansion when warranted, rather than sprawl. Policies 3A. High intensity, well designed activity centers shall be facilitated by Metro-Dade County at locations having high countywide multimodal accessibility. * * * 3C. Metro-Dade shall approve infill devel- opment on vacant sites in currently urbanized areas, and redevelopment of substandard or underdeveloped environmentally suitable urban areas contiguous to existing urban development where all necessary urban services and facili- ties are projected to have capacity to accom- modate additional demand. 3D. Metro-Dade shall seek to prevent discon- tinuous, scattered development at the urban fringe particularly in the Agriculture Areas, through its biennial CDMP amendment process, regulatory and capital improvements programs and intergovernmental coordination activities. * * * 3H. Public facility and service providers shall give priority to eliminating any infra- structure deficiencies which would impede rehabilitation or renewal of blighted areas. 3I. In formulating or amending development regulations, Dade County shall avoid creating disincentives to redevelopment of blighted areas. Where redevelopment occurs within the urban area, requirements for contributions toward provision of public facilities may be moderated where underutilized facilities or surplus capacities exist, and credit toward required infrastructure contributions may be given for the increment of development replaced by redevelopment. * * * Objective 5 Dade County shall, by the year 2000, reduce the number of land uses which are inconsistent with the uses designated on the LUP map and interpretative text, or with the character of the surrounding community. Policies 5A. Uses designated on the LUP map and inter- pretative text, which generate or cause to generate significant noise, dust, odor, vibra- tion, or truck or rail traffic, shall be pro- tected from damaging encroachment by future approval of new incompatible uses such as residential uses. 5B. Residential neighborhoods shall be pro- tected from intrusion by uses that would disrupt or degrade the health, safety, tran- quility and overall welfare of the neighbor- hood by creating such impacts as excessive noise, light, glare, odor, vibration, dust, or traffic. 5C. Complementary, but potentially incompat- ible uses shall be permitted on sites with functional neighborhoods, communities or dis- tricts only where proper design solutions can and will be used to integrate the compatible and complementary elements and buffer any potentially incompatible elements. Objective 6 Upon the adoption of this plan, all public and private activity regarding the use, development and redevelopment of land and the provision of urban services and infrastructure shall be consistent with the goal, objectives and poli- cies of this Element, with the adopted Population Estimates and Projections, and with the future uses provided by the adopted Land Use Plan (LUP) map and accompanying text entitled "Interpreta- tion of the Land Use Plan Map," as balanced with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of all Ele- ments of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies 6A. The textual material entitled "Interpre- tation of the Land Use Plan Map" contained in this Element establishes standards for allowable land uses, and densities or intensities of use for each land use category identified on the adopted Land Use Plan (LUP) map, and is declared to be an extension of these adopted Land Use Policies. 6B. All development orders authorizing a new land use or development, or redevelopment, or significant expansion of an existing use shall be contingent upon an affirmative finding that the development or use conforms to, and is consistent with the goal, objectives and poli- cies of the CDMP including the adopted LUP map and accompanying "Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map." 6C. All planning activities pertaining to development and redevelopment in Dade County shall be consistent with the "Population Esti- mates and Projections" contained in this Element, and with the locations and extent of future land uses as identified by the LUP map and its interpretative text. 6D. The area population projections shown on the map of "Population Estimates and Projec- tions" shall be used to guide public and private entities in planning for urban devel- opment and redevelopment and to guide the location, timing, and capacity of all urban services and facilities. Objective 7 Beginning in 1989 Dade County shall maintain a process for periodic amendment to the Land Use Plan map, consistent with the adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies of this Plan, which will provide that the Land Use Plan Map accommodates urban expansion at projected countywide rates. Policies 7A. Activity centers, industrial complexes, regional shopping centers, large-scale office centers and other concentrations of signifi- cant employment shall be recognized as poten- tial structuring elements of the Metropolitan area and shall be sited on the basis of metro- politan-scale considerations at locations with good countywide multi-modal accessibility. 7B. Distribution of neighborhood or community serving retail sales uses and personal and pro- fessional offices throughout the urban area shall reflect the spatial distribution of the residential population, among other salient social, economic and physical considerations. 7C. Residential development shall occur in locations that are suitable as reflected by such factors as the following: recent trends in location and design of residential units; projected availability of service and infra- structure capacity; proximity and accessi- bility to employment, commercial and cultural centers; avoidance of natural resource degra- dation; and maintenance or creation of amenities. 7D. In conducting its planning, regulatory, and capital improvements and intergovernmental coordination activities, Dade County shall seek to facilitate planning of residential areas as neighborhoods which include recrea- tional, educational and other public facilities, houses of worship, and safe and convenient cir- culation of automotive, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 7E. Through its planning, regulatory, capital improvements and intergovernmental coordination activities, Dade County shall continue to pro- tect agriculture as a viable economic use of land in Dade County. * * * 7G. Necessary utility facilities may be lo- cated throughout Dade County in all land use categories as provided in the "Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map" text. 7H. The maintenance of internal consistency among all Elements of the CDMP shall be a prime consideration in evaluating all requests for amendment to any Element of the Plan. Among other considerations, the LUP map shall not be amended to provide for additional urban expansion unless traffic circulation, mass transit, water, sewer, solid waste, drainage and park and recreation facilities necessary to serve the area are included in the plan and the associated funding programs are demonstra- ted to be viable. 7I. Applications requesting amendments to the CDMP Land Use Plan map shall be evaluated to consider consistency with the Goals, Ob- jectives and Policies of all Elements, other timely issues, and in particular the extent to which the proposal, if approved, would: Satisfy a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County; Enhance or impede provision of services at adopted LOS standards. Be compatible with abutting and nearby land uses; and Enhance or degrade environmental or histor- ical resources, features or systems of County significance. Objective 8 Dade County shall continue to maintain in the Code of Metropolitan Dade County and adminis- trative regulations, and shall enhance as nec- essary, by the date required by Section 163.3203, F.S., provisions which ensure that future land use and development in Dade County is consistent with the CDMP. * * * 8D. Dade County shall continue to investigate, maintain and enhance methods, standards and reg- ulatory approaches which facilitate sound com- patible mixing of uses in projects and communi- ties. 8E. Dade County shall enhance and formalize its standards for defining and ensuring compatibility among proximate uses, and requirements for buffer- ing. Factors that will continue to be considered in determining compatibility include, but are not limited to noise, lighting, shadows, access, traffic, parking, height, bulk, landscaping, hours of operation, buffering and safety. Objective 9 Energy efficient development shall be accom- plished through metropolitan land use patterns, site planning, landscaping, building design, and development of multimodal transportation systems. Policies 9A. Dade County shall facilitate contiguous urban development, infill, redevelopment of substandard or underdeveloped urban areas, high intensity activity centers, mass transit supportive development, and mixed use projects to promote energy conservation. Selected Goals, Objectives and Policies of Other Elements The following is the goal of the 1990 CDMP's traffic circulation element: Develop, operate and maintain a safe, efficient and economical traffic circulation system in Metropolitan Dade County that provides ease of mobility to all people and for all goods, is consistent with desired land use patterns, conserves energy, and protects the natural environment. Policy 4C. of the traffic circulation element provides as follows: Dade County's priority in construction, main- tenance, and reconstruction of roadways, and the allocation of financial resources, shall be given first to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary of the Land Use Plan Map. Second priority in transportation allocations shall support the staged develop- ment of the urbanizing portions of the County within the Urban Expansion Area. Transporta- tion improvements which encourage development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements which are necessary for public safety and which serve the localized needs of these non-urban areas. The following are among the objectives and policies of the 1990 CDMP's aviation subelement: Objective 4 Minimize air space interactions and obstruc- tions to assure the safety of aviation users and operators and residents of Dade County. Policies * * * 4D. Support zoning that would protect exis- ting and proposed aviation flight paths con- sistent with federal agency guidelines. 4E. Seek federal agency cooperation in pro- tecting future air space from development obstructions. * * * Objective 8 Maximize compatibility between airports and the surrounding communities. Policies * * * 8B. Dade County shall implement Federal Aviation Administration FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Studies completed for appro- priate airports through the Land Use Element of the Dade County Comprehensive Master Plan, the Dade County Zoning Ordinance, and the South Florida Building Code to provide for land use compatibility in the vicinity of these air- ports. Objective 6 and Policy 6A. of the 1990 CDMP's housing element provide as follows: Objective 6 Increase residential accessibility to public facilities, services, and employment centers throughout the County to include parks and other recreational amenities. Policies 6A. Utilize existing planning and programming mechanisms to insure that new residential devel- opment occurs only if it is coordinated with plans for the provision of an adequate level of services and facilities. Policy 6C. of the 1990 CDMP's conservation, aquifer recharge and drainage element provides as follows: Areas in Dade County having soils with good potential for agricultural use without addi- tional drainage of wetlands shall be protected from premature urban encroachment until the need for such urban conversion is demonstrated. Objective 1 and Policy 1A. of the 1990 CDMP's water, sewer and solid waste element provide as follows: Objective 1 In order to serve those areas where growth is encouraged and discourage urban sprawl, the County shall plan and provide for potable water supply, sanitary sewage disposal, and solid waste disposal services on a countywide basis in concert and in conformance with the future land use element of the comprehensive plan. Policies 1A. The area within the Urban Development Boundary of the adopted Land Use Plan Map shall have the first priority in providing potable water supply, sanitary sewage disposal, and solid waste disposal services, and for commit- ting financial resources to these services. Future development in the designated Urban Expansion Area shall have second priority in planning or investments for these services. Investments in public water and sewer service shall be avoided in those areas designated for Agriculture, Open Space, or Environmental Protection on the Land Use Plan map, except where essential to eliminate or prevent a threat to the public health or safety. Objectives 3, 4 and 5 and Policies 3B., 4A., 4B. and 5A. of the 1990 CDMP's capital improvements element provide as follows: Objective 3 Upon adoption of this Plan land use decisions will be made in the context of available fiscal resources such that scheduling and providing capital facilities for new development will not degrade adopted service levels. Policies * * * 3B. Service and facility impacts of new de- velopment must be identified and quantified so that sufficient public facilities will be planned and programmed to be available when needed. All development orders authorizing new, or significant expansion of existing urban land uses, shall be contingent upon the provision of services at the Levels of Service (LOS) which meet or exceed the adopted LOS standards. * * * Objective 4 Levels of service standards for those services listed in the CIE will be upgraded and main- tained at adopted levels. Policies 4A. By the date set in Section 163.3202 F.S., Dade County shall formalize requirements that all new development regardless of size which benefits from the provision of public facili- ties and infrastructure will bear an equitable share of the costs of such facilities, make contribution in kind or transfer land, in amounts necessary to accommodate the impact of proposed development. 4B. Appropriate funding mechanisms will be adopted and applied by Dade County in order to assure the fiscal resources to maintain acceptable levels of service. Such funding mechanisms include special tax districts, municipal taxing service units, local option taxes, user fees, local gas taxes, general obligation bonds, impact fees, and special purpose authorities among others. * * * Objective 5 Upon the adoption of this plan development approvals will strictly adhere to all adopted growth management and land development regu- lations and will include specific reference to the means by which public facilities and infrastructure will be provided. Policies 5A. As a priority, previously approved de- velopment will be properly served prior to new development approvals under the provisions of this Plan. First priority will be to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of the Land Use Plan (LUP) map. Second priority in investments for services and facilities shall support the staged development of the Urban Expansion Area (UEA). Urban ser- vices and facilities which support or encourage urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements necessary to protect public health and safety and which service localized needs. This element also includes a five-year schedule of capital improvements. Transmittal of Plan Amendment to the Department On or about April 3, 1990, the County Manager transmitted to the Department Ordinance No. 90-28, along with other documentation, including the written material that the Suchmans had submitted in support of their application, as well as a document prepared by the Planning Department which purported to provide "a synopsis of the information received by the Board of County Commissioners as bases for approving the applications subject to DCA objections." The Planning Department's synopsis stated the following with respect to Applications 39, 40 and 47: Application No. 39 The flight path for training flights around Tamiami-Kendall Airport circle around this application site but do not directly fly over this site. This application represents urban infill rather than leap frog development. Approval of residential use on this site will allow people to live in close proximity to the employment center around the Tamiami-Kendall Airport. Application No. 40 The site will be used for a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND). A covenant was provided to ensure this. Services are available on sites immediately to the east. The area is not flood prone, or environmen- tally sensitive in any way. Extensive testimony and documentation was received which casts doubt on the accuracy of the Planning Department's estimates and pro- jections of growth in this area. (See enclosed exhibits). This site is nearby the industrial and office employment center which is developing around the Tamiami-Kendall Airport, therefore, urbanization of this site complements and supports the policy of promoting development around activity centers. The extension of the Coral Reef Drive corridor provides an alternative to the Kendall Drive corridor as a location for additional urban development. * * * Application 47 The site is bordered on the east and south by the year 2000 Urban Development Boundary (UDB). It is in the logical path of future urban development. To the south is the urban- izing area of Homestead. Pockets of estate residential homes and zoning exist in the area designated Agricul- ture to the north and west of this site. There are not level of service problems in the area. The area is not flood prone. The specific density of estate residences to be built on this site is not established by approving the CDMP amendment; that will be decided at a future zoning hearing. The transmittal package sent by the County Manager was received by the Department on April 6, 1990. Suchmans' Request to Receive Notice of the Department's Action By letter dated March 30, 1990, David Goldwich, Esquire, counsel for the Suchmans, requested that the Department send him a copy of the "notice of intent to find the CDMP Application No. 40 in compliance or not in compliance with Chapter 163." The Department responded to Goldwich's letter by sending him a letter, dated April 17, 1990, in which it promised to provide him with a copy of the notice of intent when it was issued. The Department's Compliance Determination: Notice and Statement of Intent In reviewing the County's 1990 Plan Amendment, the Department treated each approved application as a separate amendment to the CDMP. Following its review of these approved applications, the Department issued its notice of intent "to find the amendment(s) adopted by Ordinance 90- 28, Amendment Nos. 39, 40 and 47 NOT IN COMPLIANCE and Amendment Nos. 1 to 9, 11 to 16, 19, 22 to 24, 26 to 29, 44 to 46, 49, 51, 53 and 55 to 71 IN COMPLIANCE, pursuant to Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, F.S." On or about May 15, 1990, the Department sent a copy of the notice of intent to the Miami Herald, along with a letter requesting that the notice be published in the May 21, 1990, edition of the Herald. Through no fault of the Department's, the notice was published in the May 24, 1990, edition of the Herald, instead of the May 21, 1990, edition as the Department had requested. The Department mailed a copy of the notice of intent to the Suchmans' counsel, 32/ although it was never received. By letter dated May 18, 1990, to Mayor Clark, the Department advised the County of its compliance determination. On May 21, 1990, the Department issued a statement of intent in which it explained the bases for its determination that "Amendment Nos. 39, 40 and 47 [were] NOT IN COMPLIANCE." In its statement of intent, the Department alleged that "Amendments 40 and 47 are not supported by an adequate suitability analysis of the vacant land to which they apply, or an adequate analysis documenting the need for the UDB expansion [in violation of] Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a), 9J- 5.006(2)(b) and 9J-5.006(2)(c), F.A.C.;" "Amendments 40 and 47 are inconsistent with other provisions in the plan (including but not limited to Objectives 1, 3 and 7, Policies 1A, 1B, 3D, and 7G and implementing procedures on p. 33 and 34 of the Future Land Use Element) concerning discouraging urban sprawl and prioritizing public facilities within the UDB [in violation of] Rules 9J- 5.005(5)(a), 9J-5.006(3)(b)7. and 9J-5.011(2)(b)3., F.A.C.;" "Amendments 40 and 47 are inconsistent with Objective 7, Policies 7E, H and I, and implementing procedures on p. 34 and 35 of the Future Land Use Element, and other provisions of the plan concerning future expansion of the UDB [in violation of] Rules 9J- 5.005(5)(a) and (b), F.A.C.;" "Amendments" 40 and 47 result in "an internal inconsistency because [they] negate the intended effect [of the settlement agreement between the Department and the County] of allowing roadway degradation in existing urban areas, which is to encourage development and redevelopment in such areas, promote public transportation and discourage urban sprawl" and, consequently, these amendments are in violation of "Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)7. and 9J-5.011(3)(b)3., F.A.C.;" "[A]mendments 40 and 47 are not supported by data analysis which justifies changing the agricultural land use to industrial or residential land use [in violation of] Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and 9J-5.006(2)(c), F.A.C.;" "Amendment" 39 "inappropriately places a residential area within a proposed aviation flight path which is inconsistent with Objective 4 and Policy 4D in the Port and Aviation Element of the Dade Comprehensive Plan [in violation of] Rules 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b), 9J-5.006(3)(b)3. and 9J- 5.006(3)(c)2., F.A.C.; "Amendments" 40 and 47 cause the CDMP to be inconsistent with Goal (16)(a) and Policies (16)(b)(2) and 18(b)(1) of the State Comprehensive Plan, as well as Policies 57.1.2 and 69.1.1 of the South Florida Regional Policy Plan; and "Amendment" 39 causes the CDMP to be inconsistent with Policy 69.1.1 of the South Florida Regional Policy Plan. Referral to the Division: The Department's Petition and Amended Petition On June 8, 1990, the Department filed a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Appended to the petition were copies of the Department's notice of intent and its statement of intent. The Department alleged in the petition that the "plan amendments" made by the County through the adoption of Ordinance No. 90-28 were: not in compliance because they contain the "inconsistent provisions" described in the Statement of Intent and for the following additional reasons: Amendment 39 is inconsistent with Objec- tives 5, 6 and 7 and Policies 5B, 7C, 7D, and 7I-3 of the plan's Future Land Use Element. Rules 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (6), F.A.C. Amendment 40 is inconsistent with Objec- tives 5 and 6 and Policies 5B, 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D, of the plan's Future Land Use Element. Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). Amendment 47 is inconsistent with Objectives 5 and 6 and Policies 5B, 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D of the plan's Future Land Use Element. On June 19, 1990, the Department filed an amended petition with the Division. That portion of the original petition excerpted above was modified to read as follows in the amended petition: The plan amendments are not in compliance because they contain the "inconsistent provisions" de- scribed in the Statement of Intent and for the following additional reasons: Amendment 40 is inconsistent with Objec- tives 5 and 6, and Policies 5B, 7A, 7B, 7C, and 7D, of the plan's Future Land Use Element. Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). Amendment 47 is inconsistent with Objec- tives 5 and 6 and Policies 5B, 7C and 7D of the plan's Future Land Use Element. Rules 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). Amendments 40 and 47 are inconsistent with the following provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Goal (16)(a) and Policies (16)(b)1 and 2; Downtown Revitalization Goal (17)(a) and Policy (17)(b)1; Public Facilities Goal (18)(a) and Poli- cies (18)(b)1 and 2; Economy Policies (22)(b) 3 and 12; Agriculture Goal (23)(a). The Objectors' Petition for Leave to Intervene and Rist's Amended Petition On June 26, 1990, the Objectors filed with the Division a joint petition for leave to intervene in this matter. The petition incorporated the allegations that the Department had made in the original petition it had filed with the Division, as well as the recommendations that the Dade County Planning Department had made with respect to Applications 39, 40 and 47. In addition, the Objectors alleged the following in their petition regarding these approved applications: [S]aid amendments 39, 40, and 47 are inconsis- tent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Sec- tion 187.201, F.S., specifically subsections 16a, 16b1, 16b2, 17a, 17b1, 18a, 18b1, 18b2, 20a, 22b3, 22b12, and 23a. Briefly put, the amendments fail, inter alia, to preserve natural resources; fail to maintain and expand agriculture; fail to encourage the separation of rural and urban life; provide for incompatible neighboring uses; promote urban sprawl; waste public and private assets; and fail to aid in a state transpor- tation system. * * * The amendments are not supported by data showing a need for the uses approved [and] thus violate Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. On December 10, 1990, at the outset of the final hearing in the instant case, Objector Rist requested permission to file an amended petition which contained the following additional allegations not found in the Objectors' joint petition for leave to intervene: Amendments 40 and 47 do not reflect and are inconsistent with "Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map: Policy of the Land Use Element" pages I-35 through 39 and not pages 33 through 35 of the Future Land Use Element as erroneously cited in the original petition. It is alleged that amendment 40 and 47 do not reflect and are inconsistent with Policies 3A, 3H, 5A, and 7A of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Amendments 39, 40 and 47 do not reflect and are inconsistent with Policy 6C of the Con- servation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Amendment 39 does not reflect and is incon- sistent with Objective 8 of the Ports and Avia- tion Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Amendments 40 and 47 are inconsistent with Policy 23(b)2 of the State Comprehensive Plan. Miscellaneous Findings: The State Comprehensive Plan The State Comprehensive Plan addresses issues of statewide importance. The following are among the more than 300 individual goals and policies which comprise the State Comprehensive Plan: LAND USE.- Goal.- In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhanc- ing the quality of life of the state, develop- ment shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. Policies.- Promote state programs, investments, and development and redevelopment activities which encourage efficient development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce. Develop a system of incentives, and disin- centives which encourages a separation or urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats. * * * DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION.- Goal.- In recognition of the importance of Florida's developing and redeveloping down- towns to the state's ability to use existing infrastructure and to accommodate growth in an orderly, efficient and environmentally accept- able manner, Florida shall encourage the cen- tralization of commercial, governmental, retail, residential, and cultural activities within downtown areas. Policies.- 1. Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities. * * * PUBLIC FACILITIES.- Goal.- Florida shall protect the sub- stantial investments in public facilities that already exist and shall plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. Policies.- Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing pub- lic facilities. Promote rehabilitation and reuse of exis- ting facilities, structures, and buildings as an alternative to new construction. * * * (20) TRANSPORTATION.- (a) Goal.- Florida shall direct future trans- portation improvements to aid in the management of growth and shall have a state transportation system that integrates highway, air, mass tran- sit, and other transportation modes. * * * THE ECONOMY.- Goal.- Florida shall promote an economic climate which provides economic stability, max- imizes job opportunities, and increases per capita income for its residents. Policies.- * * * Maintain, as one of the state's primary economic assets, the environment, including clean air and water, beaches, forests, historic landmarks, and agricultural and natural resour- ces. * * * 12. Encourage the development of a business climate that provides opportunities for the growth and expansion of existing state indus- tries, particularly those industries which are compatible with Florida's environment. * * * AGRICULTURE.- Goal.- Florida shall maintain and strive to expand its food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, and re- lated industries in order to be a healthy and competitive force in the national and inter- national marketplace. Policies. Ensure that goals and policies contained in state and regional plans are not interpreted to permanently restrict the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. Encourage diversification within the agri- culture industry, especially to reduce the vulnerability of communities that are largely reliant upon agriculture for either income or employment. Miscellaneous Findings: The Regional Plan for South Florida The South Florida Regional Planning Council has adopted a Regional Plan for South Florida to guide future development in Broward, Dade and Monroe Counties. The following are among the more than 650 individual goals and policies found in the Regional Plan: Regional Goal: 57.1 New development will not be permitted in areas where public facilities do not already exist, are not programmed, or cannot economic- ally be provided. Regional Policies: * * * 57.1.2 Give priority to development in areas that are in need of redevelopment and in areas within which adequate support services are either programmed or available Regional Goal: 58.1 Beginning in 1987, all land use plans and development regulations shall consider the compatibility of adjacent land uses, and the impacts of land uses on the surrounding environment. Regional Policies: * * * 58.1.7 Encourage the compatibility of adja- cent land uses. * * * Regional Policies: 64.2.1 Land use in and around air- and sea-ports must be strictly controlled to allow future increased operations, to optimize volume, and to prevent unnecessary social or economic conflicts and costs. * * * Regional Goal: The 1990-1995 rate of loss of agricul- tural land to urban uses should be reduced by 10 percent from the 1980-1985 rate. Regional Policies: Encourage activities that maintain an economic/regulatory climate to ensure the con- tinued viability of agricultural interests when those interests are balanced against other concerns. The Regional Plan contains the following "background" information regarding the goal and policies pertaining to agriculture: Agriculture is one of Florida's most important industries. Traditional agriculture (citrus, vegetables and melons, livestock, poultry, greenhouse and nursery, field and other crops) contributed 27 billion dollars to Florida's economy in 1984. The agricultural vitality of South Florida stems from its climate which allows crops to be grown throughout the year, and the production of unique crops such as mangoes. In 1980, 126,785 acres of land, 4.7 percent of the total area in South Florida, was in cropland, pasture and range land, and forest land. This represents 0.5 percent of all such land in the State. Agricultural land is rapidly being lost. . . . When compared to Broward County, Dade County generates a significantly larger share of the economic activity due to agriculture in the Region. 33/ Current 1986 figures show 85,000 acres in agriculture, producing a large variety of crops. These include: tomatoes, snap beans, Irish potatoes, squash, tropical vegetables, sweet corn and fruits such as limes, mangoes and avocados. The markets for these fruits and vegetables are mainly in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, and Canada. Dade County is the largest producer of toma- toes, snap beans, and squash, of any county in the State of Florida. Over 90 percent of limes and mangoes produced in the United States are grown in Dade County. Dade County has the largest ornamental nursery industry of any county in the State of Florida. The main reason for Dade's success in agriculture is South Florida's climate. Vegetables are pro- duced in mid-winter when no other areas in the U.S. are producing. These crops provide fresh produce for the country's markets. It is significant to note that Dade County ranks last in the State for average farm size (59 acres) but is fifth in the State for market value of agricultural products. Agriculture is profitable on a per acre basis because the climate allows for double cropping. . . . In 1983, the agricultural industry produced less than 1 percent of total earnings in the South Florida region. The importance of this sector cannot be measured in dollar terms alone. The general public tends to view agriculture as a transitional land use. The benefits of maintaining the agricultural economy, however, are significant. Agricultural land can provide open space between areas with urban uses, it can serve as a watershed where water is collec- ted and later used in a farm or non-farm use, it can provide a habitat for wildlife, and it can provide unique beauty. New technology and agricultural practices are also providing new opportunities for disposing of sewage sludge on agricultural lands, benefitting both the rural and urban sectors. . . . Agricultural research activities have already yielded many benefits to South Florida agri- culture. Progress has been made in developing: more efficient irrigation systems, integrated pest management, improved strains of crops in production, as well as new crops to put into production. The findings of agricultural research can continue to improve the conser- vation, production, and marketing techniques available to South Florida farmers. South Florida farmers are experiencing many of the same problems that farmers in other high growth areas are facing. 34/ Land in South Florida that is suitable for agricul- tural use is also highly suitable for urban uses. Given the geographic configuration of the Florida Peninsula agricultural areas are never far removed from urban areas. Urban growth and the pressures of suburbanization are constantly felt by the Region's farmers. 35/ Many problems arise when agricultural and urban land uses interface. Non-farm residents complain because of farm noise, smells, and such practices as fertilizer and pesticide spraying. Nuisance suits and ordinances that prohibit certain farm practices create pressures that reduce the profitability and desirability to farm. 36/ Farm land conversion to urban uses is a serious problem in our Region. 37/ Analysis of prop- erty appraiser data shows the reduction in net agricultural acreage between 1980-1985 to be 18 percent for the Region. This figure applies mainly to agricultural land in Broward County. According to the Dade County Cooperative Exten- sion Service, net agricultural acreage has re- mained stable for the past 20 years. 38/ This is because land rezoned for urban uses has been replaced by other lands converted for agricul- tural use. This represents another problem. As agricultural land is converted to urban uses, agriculture may be pushed into wetlands, wild- life habitats, and other fragile ecosystems. Miscellaneous Findings: Urban Sprawl In November, 1989, the Department of Community Affairs published a Technical Memorandum (Volume IV, Number 4) which was designed "to help local governments and interested parties understand the requirements for discouraging urban sprawl that must be met to comply with Florida's planning requirements." The memorandum defines "urban sprawl" as "scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades lands important for environmental and natural resource protection." According to the memorandum, "urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following inefficient land use patterns: (1) leapfrog development; (2) ribbon or strip development; and (3) large expanses of low-density, single-dimensional development." These land use patterns are described in the memorandum as follows: Leapfrog development occurs when new develop- ment is sited away from an existing urban area, bypassing vacant parcels located in or closer to the urban area that are suitable for development. It typically results in scattered, discontinuous growth patterns in rural areas which are frequently not appro- priate for urban development. * * * Leapfrog development is not usually mixed-use, multi-dimensional development. Consequently, it works against the creation of vibrant com- munities, creates much greater dependence on automobile transportation, and results in an inefficient use of land resources. Strip or ribbon development involves the loca- tion of high amounts of commercial, retail, office and often multi-family residential de- velopment in a linear pattern along both sides of major arterial roadways. * * * Low-density, single-dimensional development consists of single land uses, typically low-density residential, spread over large land areas. Frequently, the land is in rural, forestry, agricultural, or environmentally sensitive areas that should be protected from urban development. This land-intensive devel- opment pattern, stemming from uncontrolled, poorly planned, and premature development, tends to place an undue burden on external infrastructure and major transportation connectors by not providing a complementary mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Sprawling single-use development hinders the evolution of vibrant communities, reinforces dependence upon personal automobile use, generates higher public costs for facilities and services, promotes an inefficient and unattractive use of developable land, and frequently destroys significant environmental and natural resources. The memorandum's description of "urban sprawl" is consistent with the definition most commonly employed by professional planners. Indicators of sprawl mentioned in the memorandum include the following: The amount of residential land and densities depicted on the future land use map signifi- cantly exceed the projected need for residen- tial land use by type during the planning period. In discussing this indicator, the memorandum advised that "[a]ny plan in which the amount of land designated to receive development totals more than 125 percent of the amount needed to accommodate projected need will be closely scrutinized by the DCA." In order to ascertain whether development meets the definition of "urban sprawl" used by the Department, it may be necessary to determine whether the area involved is "rural" or on the "urban fringe." The memorandum suggests that such a determination may be based upon the area's population density. According to the memorandum, areas should be classified as follows based upon their population densities Density per square mile: Classification 0-200 Rural 201-500 Exurban 501-1000 Suburban 1001-2000 Medium [Urban] Density 2001-5000 High [Urban] Density 5000+ Highest Urban Density Among the specific techniques recommended in the memorandum to curb "urban sprawl" are establishing "urban service areas and urban growth boundaries," "[p]romoting urban infill development and redevelopment," and imposing "mixed-use and clustering requirements." With respect the latter technique, the memorandum states as follows: One of the most important and critical tech- niques for discouraging sprawl is strong mixed use policies which require residential and nonresidential uses to be located in reason- ably close proximity to each other. Such policies should promote an attractive, func- tionally and physically integrated mix of commercial, office, retail, residential (including affordable housing), and recrea- tional land uses. Development designed in this manner can even occur away from existing urban areas and not represent urban sprawl if it consists of a complementary mix of residen- tial and nonresidential land uses at medium to high densities, promotes high levels of inter- nal capture, does not rely on rural arterials for local traffic movements, and encourages pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The tradi- tional neighborhood development district code is an example of how this concept can be implemented.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order in Case No. 90-3599GM finding that Metropolitan Dade County's 1990 Plan Amendment is "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of December, 1991. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of December, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 13, 1995, Petitioner, Hillary Sklar, filed Petitioner's Second Amended Petition. Ms. Sklar has challenged the Department's determination that an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan adopted by Ordinance No. 94-2-2 was "in compliance." In the second amended petition Ms. Sklar made the following allegations concerning her standing to institute this proceeding: * * * 2. The Petitioner's address is 11321 Southwest 49th Place, Fort Lauderdale, 33330, in the County of Broward, Florida. * * * 4. On February 8, 1994, the Respondent passed Ordinance NO. 94 -2 -2 authorizing the implement- ation of Land Use Plan Amendment 94 - S - 1. The Land Use Plan Amendment affects property located at 11791 Southwest 49th Street, Cooper City, in the County of Broward. . . . * * * Petitioner's property is located in a section of unincorporated Broward County which abuts and adjoins the property in question. Petitioner's property has been defined by Respondent as an "enclave." Petitioner's property is similarly situated to those of property owners in Cooper City and will be affected more than those property owners located in Cooper City; including, but not limited to, the allegations contained in Paragraphs 10 through 17, inclusive. Petitioner made objections to the ordinance at the February 8, 1994 City Council meeting discussing adoption of the ordinance. . . . * * * Ms. Sklar has still failed to allege that she resides, owns property or operates a business located with a City of Cooper City address or which otherwise is subject to the jurisdiction of the City of Cooper City. The oral objections made by Ms. Sklar were made at a public hearing of the City of Cooper City Council held on February 8, 1994. According to the minutes of that meeting, Ms. Sklar "said the zoning is a done deal and the annexation and sale was a done deal. Why should it be a done deal before the Public Hearing was held, she asked." The factual information contained in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order is hereby incorporated by reference.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's Second Amended Petition, filed by Hillary Sklar. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward R. Curtis, Esquire Bruce Botsford, Esquire 1828 S.E. 1st Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Suzanne H. Schmith Certified Legal Intern Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Silvia Morell Alderman, Esquire Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan Stengle, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issues in this case are: Whether a Residential Office (RO) designation for the thirty acre parcel at the southeast corner of McMullen-Booth and Curlew Roads, which is owned by Gas Kwik (Petitioner), is consistent with the Countywide Comprehensive Plan for Pinellas County (Countywide Plan); or Whether a split designation of RO for the northern nine acres with Low Density Residential (LDR) for the southern twenty-one acres of the subject parcel, as recommended by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC), is consistent with the Countywide Plan and supported by competent substantial evidence, and Whether the PPC is authorized to initiate this split designation amendment rather than limiting its review and recommendation to the RO designation which was approved by the City of Safety Harbor (City), and forwarded to the PPC by the City as a proposed amendment to the Countywide Plan.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owns a thirty acre parcel of property located in the City of Safety Harbor, Pinellas County, Florida, which is the subject of the proposed land use change at issue in this case. The PPC is the countywide land planning agency charged with development and implementation of the Countywide Plan. As it relates to this case, it is responsible for review of the proposed amendment to the Countywide Plan concerning Petitioner's parcel, and for recommending action on that amendment to the Board of County Commissioners. The City of Safety Harbor (City) received the Petitioner's application for a redesignation of the subject property from Suburban Low Density Residential (SLDR) to Residential/Office/Retail (ROR), and after review it approved an amendment to the City's land use plan map on March 6, 1989, which redesignated Petitioner's property to Residential/Office (RO). Thereafter, the City requested an amendment to the Countywide Plan to change the designation of the subject property to RO. After review, the PPC recommended denial of the City's request, and further, recommended an alternative split designation of Residential/Office - Low Density Residential (RO/LDR). Neither the City nor the Petitioner have agreed to the PPC's compromise alternative. The Petitioner timely filed its request for a hearing on the PPC's denial of the City's request, and its recommendation of the split alternative. The City did not seek to become a party to this action, but as the owner of the property in question, the Petitioner is substantially affected by the PPC's action, and its right to maintain this action without the participation of the City is not at issue. Location and Characteristics of the Property The subject property is located at the northwestern boundary of the City, bordered on the north by unincorporated Pinellas County, on the west by the City of Clearwater, and on the east, across the Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal, by the City of Oldsmar. The property lies at the intersection of McMullen- Booth and Curlew Roads, both of which are designated scenic, non- commercial corridors, although where it abuts the subject property Curlew Road is not so designated. The City does not recognize this portion of McMullen-Booth Road within its jurisdiction as a scenic, non-commercial corridor. Across Curlew Road to the north of the Petitioner's parcel is a vacant tract of about 7.5 acres in unincorporated Pinellas County that is currently designated SLDR, which allows 2.5 units per acre. The adjoining property to the south is also a vacant parcel in unincorporated Pinellas County, with a designation of SLDR, and is approximately 30 acres in size. Further to the south, is Mease Countryside Hospital and related office and health care facilities. Across the Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal to the east is a low density residential mobile home park in the City of Oldsmar with a land use designation that allows 7.5 units per acre. A residential subdivision in which one lot abuts the subject property is located to the southeast. Across McMullen-Booth Road to the west in the City of Clearwater are a single family residential area and nursing home, with land use designations which allow from 1 to 5 units per acre. Mease Countryside Hospital, and associated offices, are appropriately located along McMullen-Booth Road to the south of the subject property since this location is consistent with the relevant portion of the Countywide Plan that states, "Hospitals should continue to be built adjacent to freely moving traffic corridors so that they are conveniently accessible to emergency and private vehicular traffic." The siting of the nursing home to the west of the Petitioner's parcel, across McMullen-Booth Road, is consistent with those portions of the Countywide Plan which provide, "Nursing homes should be built near community hospitals whenever possible in order to encourage inter-institutional activities", and which encourage prospective builders of nursing homes to locate such facilities in residential settings. There is a clear potential for a substantial impact on surrounding jurisdictions from the development of the subject property. Approval of the proposed RO designation, with its allowable density of 15 units per acre, can reasonably be expected to result in pressure to redesignate the vacant parcel located to the immediate south of the subject property from its current SLDR designation, allowing 2.5 units per acre, to the higher density allowable under RO, which is, in fact, the highest density allowed in the unincorporated county. Concerns of other jurisdictions must be considered under the Countywide Plan, which sets forth the following guidelines for intergovernmental coordination: Evaluate the potential impacts proposed programs and activities may have on adjacent government entities before actively pursuing implementation. Consider the programs and activities of surrounding jurisdictions before making decisions which may have multi-jurisdictional affects. The subject property is vacant and consists of approximately thirty acres. Its current designation is SLDR, which allows up to 2.5 units per acre. This current designation is consistent with surrounding residential uses. The Possum Branch Creek drainageway traverses the property in an approximately east to west direction, with approximately nine acres lying to the north and twenty-one acres to the south. The original channel was meandering, but currently it is a straight line with a spoil bank on the north side. This is a channelized, natural drainageway which is classified as a major drainageway under the Drainage Element of the Countywide Plan, which includes the policy of restoring drainageways to their natural course whenever possible. Significant portions of the southern twenty-one acres of this parcel lie within the 100 year flood plain. Residential land use designations in the Countywide Plan provide that densities of greater than five units per acre are inappropriate for areas with significant environmental constraints, such as areas within the 100 year flood plain. While development in a flood plain is not prohibited, relevant portions of the Plan specifically list both SLDR and LDR, which allow densities of from 2.5 to 5 units per acre, as appropriate for flood zone restricted property. The southern portion of the property includes a portion of a five acre eagle protection area which extends to the south and southeast beyond the Petitioner's property, and which separates this property from the existing residential subdivision to the southeast and vacant property to the immediate south. It extends into the vacant parcel to the south The Eagle's continued use of this area is uncertain. Because the Countywide Plan allows for the transfer of development density out of this eagle protection area, the existence and location of this area does not favor any particular pattern of development on the subject property. The predominate vegetation on the parcel consists of oak trees located in the right-of-way of McMullen- Booth Road in the southwest corner of the site. Scenic Non-Commercial Corridor The purpose and intent of the scenic, non- commercial corridor policy in the Countywide Pan is to protect the corridor's traffic carrying capacity, to limit adjacent non- residential uses, and to encourage the scenic and natural qualities along the corridors. It is a policy of long-standing application, originally adopted in 1977, and covers six such corridors, including McMullen-Booth Road. Stability and control of land uses along such corridor is a significant component of transportation planning for the corridor. Commercial uses allowed under the RO land use designation are not permitted within 500 feet of the right-of-way of a designated scenic, non-commercial corridor, unless approved by plan amendment or recognized on the Future Land Use Plan. No dwelling units may be located within 350 feet of the scenic, non- commercial corridor right-of-way. Two parcels with an RO designation exist south of the Mease Hospital, but each of these were authorized while the PPC lacked authority to apply the scenic, non-commercial corridor policy and before the effective date of the Countywide Plan. Under the Countywide Plan, there have been no deviations from the protection of the scenic, non-commercial corridor policy along McMullen-Booth Road, and in several specific instances the PPC has, without exception, refused to recommend approval of amendments which would have been inconsistent with that policy. While there are instances of multi-family, office and commercial development along McMullen-Booth Road, the land use designations along this scenic, non-commercial corridor are predominantly residential intermixed with vacant parcels, particularly north from the intersection of State Road 580 with McMullen-Booth to Curlew Road where there is a total of only 12 to 15 acres of office uses and these offices are associated with Mease Hospital. Petitioner's proposed RO amendment would more than double the number of acres on this portion of the corridor presently designated for office use. The predominant land use along McMullen-Booth north of Curlew Road to State Road 584 is also residential intermixed with vacant parcels. The non-residential intensity level established as appropriate for preserving the traffic carrying capacity along the scenic, non-commercial corridor is similar to the LDR density of 5 units per acre. However, the RO designation sought by the Petitioner allows densities of 15 units per acre, and therefore, this scale of potential non-residential use would be inconsistent with the pattern of development along this portion of the McMullen-Booth corridor from State Roads 580 to 584, and with the Countywide Plan which states, "Land planning should weigh heavily the established character predominately developed in areas where changes of use or intensity of development is contemplated. It is the position of the Petitioner that the subject property falls within a commercial node, or commercial intersection, which should be excepted from the scenic, non- commercial corridor policy. However, that policy does not specifically include an exception for "commercial nodes", and in fact such commercial nodes were not shown to exist between State Roads 580 and 584 on McMullen-Booth. There is a nodal exception policy in the housing element of the Countywide Plan which provides that higher density residential areas should be located in proximity with commercial nodes, and in areas immediately served by arterial streets and mass transit. The scenic, non-commercial policy, in contrast, encourages low density residential development and discourages mass transit. In fact, the area surrounding the subject property is not planned to receive mass transit service. The intersection of Curlew and McMullen-Booth Roads is significantly different from commercial nodes recognized in the MPO long range plan where large areas of high density residential development are concentrated, such as at the intersection of State Roads 584 and 580, and at the intersection of State Roads 586 and 584. Unlike other nodes, the subject property has only one limited access point onto McMullen-Booth, and no access onto Curlew. It is also the position of Petitioner that there would be minimum impacts resulting from an RO designation on the year 2010 Plan levels of service along this corridor. However, this is based upon the unrealistic assumption that such designation of this parcel would not result in a proliferation of similar higher density redesignations for the vacant thirty acre parcel to the south, as well as for other vacant parcels along the corridor. Such a proliferation would result in the elimination of any visual relief and any scenic transition along McMullen-Booth Road. Traffic Considerations Curlew Road (State Road 586) is presently a two- lane road in the vicinity of the subject property, while McMullen-Booth is a four-lane divided road adjacent to the property. In the MPO Year 2010 Plan, Curlew Road is designated as a six-lane divided roadway, and McMullen-Booth is designated as a four-lane divided facility. Portions of McMullen-Booth south of State Road 580 are designated for six-laning. The right-of-way design for the intersection of McMullen-Booth and Curlew Roads abutting the subject property has been designed to accommodate an elevated six-lane urban interchange, and pavement width of McMullen-Booth at this intersection is sufficient to allow it to be striped as a six-lane divided roadway at some, undetermined time in the future. While these roadway improvements have been budgeted for construction through 1992-93, no assurance of funding was shown, and therefore, these improvements are considered to be planned, but not committed. According to David Healey, who was accepted as an expert in land use and municipal planning, approval of the RO designation sought by the Petitioner will result in a 750% increase in projected vehicle trips per day over what would result from the present designation of this property as SLDR upon which these roadway improvements were planned. According to Hubert Pascoe, who was called by the PPC arid was accepted as an expert in MPO planning, Petitioner's request would generate approximately 250% more vehicle trips per day than the alternative split designation recommended by the PPC. Nevertheless, under either proposal the levels of service for these adjacent roadways would remain acceptable under the MPO Year 2010 Plan, and while an RO designation would intensify use and lower service levels somewhat, it would not create an unacceptable level of service. However, the impact of an RO designation on existing traffic and upon these adjacent roadways as they presently exist would be substantial, and is reasonably estimated to result in as much as a 30% increase in existing traffic. The Countywide Plan specifies that the "scale of (any) proposed land use development should be compatible with the capacity of existing supporting facilities, such as roads and facilities." While roadway improvements are planned, as found above, the substantial impact on existing facilities of this RO designation, without those improvements in place, would threaten continued acceptable service levels for these unimproved, existing facilities, and would perpetuate a pattern of development preceding essential facility improvements which results in unacceptable levels of service for existing facilities until planned improvements can catch up with such growth. The designation of McMullen-Booth as a scenic, non-commercial corridor, with resulting limitations on commercial and high density development, has significantly influenced the transportation planning that has taken place with regard to this corridor, and the identification of appropriate roadway improvements, specified above. The present SLDR designation of this parcel is consistent with the low intensity transportation planning assumptions considered under the Countywide Plan. Significant changes in adjoining land uses, such as redesignating vacant parcels from SLDR to RO, would result in significant changes in projected impacts and render such planning less meaningful and relevant. The RO designation sought by the Petitioner is inconsistent with basic assumptions used in the identification of projected traffic impacts that lead to the development of proposed roadway improvements which both parties acknowledge and contend will be sufficient to handle expected traffic volumes. It is unrealistic since it ignores the basic fact that these anticipated improvements are premised upon the continued viability of this scenic, non-commercial corridor which excludes high density, commercial development. The Countywide Plan states that, "The transportation system should not dictate the form and future development pattern but should be a supporting service system for the area's development plan." The transportation system can only function as a "supporting service system" when the area's development plan remains consistent, and when long standing policies, such as a scenic, non-commercial corridor, are not abandoned on a piecemeal basis. The fact that Mease Hospital is appropriately located along the McMullen-Booth corridor, south of the subject property, is not a basis on which this RO designation should be approved. Such a designation would contribute to an increase in the traffic burden on the McMullen-Booth corridor, especially when the potential for additional RO amendments based upon this redesignation is considered, and this could reasonably be expected to result in the elimination of this as a "freely moving traffic corridor" upon which the hospital siting was based. There is limited accessibility to the subject property with only northbound traffic on McMullen-Booth Road having direct access to the site. All other traffic is required to go through the McMullen-Booth and Curlew Road intersection and make a left hand turn from McMullen-Booth southbound across northbound traffic onto the site. Given this very limited access, an RO designation, with its densities up to a maximum of 15 units per acre, is inappropriate. The fact that this parcel has limited accessibility was a significant factor in the transportation planning process. The Petitioner's analysis is based upon the unrealistic assumption that other land use changes would not occur on these adjacent roadways between the present and the year 2010, even if an RO designation is approved for this parcel. The reasonable likelihood that the owners of similar parcels along McMullen-Booth Road will seek higher densities for their properties, if this RO designation is approved, must be considered in any meaningful analysis. Development Potential Petitioner does not allege that the current SLDR designation of the subject property is confiscatory. Evidence offered by Petitioner that it has been unable to market this property for low density residential development was neither competent nor substantial. Additionally, the extent and diligence of these marketing efforts is suspect since Petitioner purchased this property for the purpose of high density, commercial and office development, despite its low density residential designation, as well as that of parcels to the south and east, and also since Petitioner remains primarily interested in office and high density development. According to the Petitioner, an RO designation would serve as an appropriate buffer, or step-down, between the existing low density mobile home park, residential area, and vacant SLDR parcel to the east, southeast and south, respectively, and the high intensity activity intersection of McMullen-Booth and Curlew Roads to the north. However, the pertinent provision in the Countywide Plan provides that "development patterns should recognize and support coherent neighborhoods. Neighborhoods should be insulated wherever possible from disruptive land uses and nuisances." Placing an RO designation on the subject property lying to the north and west of residential parcels would not serve as a buffer for those residential parcels designated SLDR, nor would it insulate them from potential commercial and office development which would then be authorized for the subject property. While RO is recognized in the Countywide Plan as an appropriate buffer between major traffic corridors and LDR (5 units per acre), it is not recognized to be an appropriate buffer between such high intensity activity areas and SLDR (2.5 units per acre). The fact that there is a fully developed and apparently successful, low density, residential subdivision to the west of the southern portion of the Petitioner's parcel, across McMullen-Booth Road, conclusively establishes that this area is appropriate for residential development. Additionally, to the west of the northern portion of the subject property, across McMullen-Booth, is a nursing home. While there was evidence that residents in the subdivision have blocked some access roads into their subdivision to limit traffic on residential streets entering the subdivision from McMullen-Booth, there was no competent substantial evidence to establish that residents have been selling their homes at below market value in order to leave the subdivision, whether the rate of home sales has been increasing, or that noise levels resulting from traffic along McMullen-Booth for residents of the subdivision or the nursing home are unacceptably high. The Countywide Plan requires site planning regulations which protect residential development from such noise concerns by providing buffers along arterial roadways, including berms, walls, or woody vegetation. The open space set-back requirement of the scenic, non-commercial corridor policy is well suited for use as a buffer. Most Appropriate Designation: RO vs. RO/LDR The Petitioner seeks approval from the Board of County Commissioners of the City's action redesignating the subject 30 acre parcel from SLDR (2.5 units per acre) to RO (15 units per acre). The PPC has recommended a split designation of RO on the northern 9 acres and LDR (5 units per acre) on the southern 21 acres of Petitioner's property. The split designation provides an appropriate buffer between low density residential development and vacant parcels to the east and south, as well as projected high volume traffic at the intersection of Curlew and McMullen-Booth Roads. The southern 21 acres of the property would provide an appropriate transition density of 5 units per acre from the 2.5 units per acre to the south, and the 15 units per acre which would be allowed in the northern RO portion of the subject property adjacent to the roadway interchange. Traffic volumes at the interchange do not justify redesignating the entire parcel RO, since this would ignore, and be inconsistent with, the Countywide Plan policy of buffering low density residential areas designated SLDR. The use of Possum Creek Branch drainageway to separate the RO and LDR designations on the subject property, as recommended by the PPC, is logical and consistent with the depth of other non-residential designations along Curlew Road, as well as with prior actions by the PPC in recognition of an interchange influence area. The RO designation sought by Petitioner is inconsistent with the fact that the southern 21 acres of this parcel lie within the 100 year flood plain where low density development under SLDR or LDR is allowed, as recommended under the PPC's split designation. The scale of allowable development under an RO designation of up to 15 units per acre is not consistent with the pattern of development along the McMullen-Booth scenic, non- commercial corridor, north of State Road 580 through the Curlew Road intersection to State Road 584, or with Countywide Plan policies which seek to protect existing development patterns. The split designation recommended by the PPC does provide for consistency with existing patterns of development along adjacent portions of McMullen-Booth. The LDR designation on the southern 21 acres of the subject property aligns with the residential subdivision to the west, across McMullen-Booth Road, and is consistent with residential densities in that subdivision, as well as densities to the east and southeast. The subject property's existing SLDR designation is consistent with surrounding residential uses, with concerns for intergovernmental coordination expressed in the Countywide Plan, and with the low intensity assumptions used for transportation planning. The PPC's split designation balances these concerns for intergovernmental impacts with the Petitioner's stated desire for high density development. An LDR designation for the southern 21 acres of this parcel will provide for a viable opportunity for development, consistent with other residential developments to the west, southeast and east, and with sound planning principles. The RO designation sought by Petitioner would result in unplanned, contiguous uses along McMullen-Booth and Curlew Roads which would be inconsistent with basic assumptions that have gone into planned improvements to these roadways. Stability and control of land uses along the adjoining scenic, non-commercial corridor is a significant aspect of transportation planning for the McMullen-Booth Road corridor, which is premised upon low density residential development. Petitioner's traffic projections, concluding that land use changes associated with an RO designation would have no significant impact on the functional capacity of these adjacent roadways and planned interchange improvements, were not based upon competent substantial evidence, and were conclusively rebutted by evidence of adverse, cumulative, unplanned impacts presented by the PPC. Due to this parcel's limited accessibility, an RO designation for the entire site is inappropriate because it will result in significant adverse impacts on the traffic carrying capacity of the adjacent scenic, non-commercial corridor. The PPC's split designation retains significant low density residential acreage, which is consistent with limited access points and protection of the corridor's traffic carrying capacity. The split designation recommended by the PPC is consistent with the scenic, non-commercial corridor policies of the Countywide Plan since it will prevent the proliferation of high density development, maintain visual relief and scenic transition along McMullen-Booth Road north from Mease Hospital, and limit non-residential development along the corridor. The development of 30 acres under an RO designation at this intersection would represent an isolated nodal increase in intensity which would be inconsistent with development along this portion of the McMullen-Booth corridor, and would occur without any plans to provide mass transit services to this area. Thus, this would be inconsistent with the nodal exception policy adopted by the PPC which identifies community nodes as areas immediately served by arterial streets and mass transit. The PPC split designation does allow limited intensification of development on the northern 9 acres of the subject property immediately adjacent to the McMullen-Booth and Curlew Road intersection, thereby recognizing a reasonable extent of impact from intersection traffic and improvements. This is a reasonable approach, consistent with the Countywide Plan. Approval of the Petitioner's request for RO designation of this entire 30 acre parcel would be inconsistent with prior decisions of the PPC under the scenic, non-commercial corridor policy. The split RO/LDR designation is a reasonable compromise of competing interests and policies, and is consistent with pertinent portions of the Countywide Plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners enter a Final Order disapproving an RO designation for Petitioner's subject property, and approving, as a compromise, the PPC's split designation of RO/LDR, subject to the Petitioner and the City of Safety Harbor affirmatively joining in said compromise. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX (DOAH CASE NO. 89-3438) Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding 1. 2-4. Adopted in Finding 3. 5. Adopted in Finding 2. 6-7. Adopted in Finding 3. 8-9. Adopted in Findings 6 and 7. 10-11. Adopted in Finding 12. 12-13. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Findings 5, 7, 10, 12. Rejected in Findings 8, 27, 35. Adopted in Findings 6, 21. Rejected in Findings 6, 30, and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Finding 12. Rejected in Findings 32-40, and otherwise as speculative. 20-23. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 24-25. Adopted in Finding 21. 26. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 27-29. Adopted in Finding 21. 30-31. Rejected as unnecessary. 32. Adopted in Finding 22. 33-37. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 22. Rejected in Findings 24, 26, and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant and as simply a summation of testimony rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected in Findings 24 and 26. 42--43. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 44-45. Rejected in Finding 10. 46-47. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 48. Adopted in Finding 11. 49-50. Rejected as speculative and not based on competent substantial evidence. 51-53. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected in Finding 19. Rejected in Findings 13-20, and 40. Rejected in Finding 16, and otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding 8. Rejected in Finding 16, and otherwise as irrelevant. Rejected in Findings 18, 19, 39. Adopted in Finding 14. Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Findings 16, 18, 19, 39. Adopted in Findings 33 and 39. 64-67. Rejected in Findings 13, 16, 18, 19, 34, 37-40. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 3, 33, 38-40. Rejected in Findings 18, 19 and 39. Adopted in Finding 13. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Rejected in Findings 18, 19 and 39. Adopted in Finding 14, but otherwise Rejected as speculative and immaterial. Adopted in Findings 17 and 24. 75-78. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected in Findings 18 and 19. Rejected in Finding 8, and otherwise as irrelevant and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 14. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 5. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial, and as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 28. 87-88. Rejected in Findings 28 and 30. 89-90. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Findings 28 and 30. Adopted in Finding 30. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Findings 18, 19 and 39. Rejected in Finding 16 and otherwise as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 98-99. Rejected as speculative and immaterial. Rejected in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 5, but Rejected in Finding 16. Rejected in Finding 29. Rejected as immaterial, irrelevant and contrary to competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Findings 34-40 and otherwise as contrary to competent substantial evidence. 105-106. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Findings 32-40. Rejected in Finding 29. Rejected in Findings 32-40, and otherwise as unnecessary and immaterial. Rejected in Finding 25, and as not based on competent substantial evidence. 111-112. Rejected in Findings 32-40. 113-165. Rejected in Findings 8, 9, 11, 12, 16-20, 22, 24-27, 29, 30 and 32-40, and otherwise as unnecessary, irrelevant, and needlessly cumulative and duplicative of previous proposed findings of fact. Rulings on the PPC's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 4. 4-5. Adopted in Finding 8. 6. Adopted in Finding 5. 7-8. Adopted in Findings 11 and 33. 9-10. Adopted in Finding 10. 11. Adopted in Finding 33. 12. Adopted in Findings 9 and 10. 13. Adopted in Finding 33. 14. Adopted in Finding 12. 15. Adopted in Findings 6 and 12. 16-17. Adopted in Finding 6. 18. Adopted in Finding 16. 19. Adopted in Finding 30. 20-21. Adopted in Finding 7. 22-23. Adopted in Finding 16. 24. Adopted in Finding 15. 25-26. Adopted in Finding 16. 27. Adopted in Finding 17. 28. Adopted in Finding 9. 29. Adopted in Findings 17 and 34. 30-31. Adopted in Findings 29, 32 and 39. 32. Adopted in Findings 16 and 17. 33. Adopted in Finding 9. 34. Adopted in Finding 40. 35-40. Adopted in Findings 8, 20, 24, 27 and 35. 41-42. Adopted in Finding 28. 43-46. Adopted in Finding 30. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 30. 49-50. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 22. Adopted in Finding 23. 53-59. Adopted in Findings.24 and 36, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 26. Adopted in Finding 23. Adopted in Finding 27. Adopted in Finding 36. Rejected as unclear in the use of the term "particular amendment". Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 35. Adopted in Finding 39. 68-70. Adopted in Findings 13 and 16. Adopted in Finding 17. Adopted in Finding 20. 73-74. Adopted in Findings 21 and 23, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 75-76. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 77-78. Adopted in Findings 37 and 40. 79-83. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 84-85. Adopted in Finding 38. 86-87. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 88-98. Adopted in Findings 18, 19 and 39, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary, 99-100. Adopted in Finding 40. 101-107. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Bennett, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, FL 34616 Keith W. Bricklemyer, Esquire 777 South Harbour Island Blvd. Suite 350 Tampa, FL 33602 David P. Healey Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 440 Court Street Clearwater, FL 34616
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Section 2.01.03M. as amended, of the Walton County Land Development Code is consistent with Policy L-1.1.1(B)(5), of the Walton County Comprehensive Plan.
Findings Of Fact The Walton County Comprehensive Plan was adopted on November 7, 1996. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Plan provides in pertinent part: Policy L-1.1.1: Development within the various land use categories depicted on the Future Land Use Map shall be governed by the following permitted uses and densities and intensities of use. These land use categories are grouped and identified below as (A) Land Use Categories Exclusive to North Walton County; (B) Land Use Categories Exclusive to South Walton County; and (c) Land Use Categories Common to Both North and South Walton County. * * * COASTAL CENTER (CC): This land use category is primarily residential, allowing medium densities and support uses . . . (a) Uses in the Coastal Center include: Public uses are squares, parks and playgrounds. Civic uses include libraries, post offices, churches, and similar facilities. Workplaces shall be limited to offices and artisanal uses. Commercial shall be for retail, entertainment, restaurant, services and lodging. Residential uses have a maximum density of eight (8) units per acre. The entire Land Development Code of Walton County was readopted on July 24, 1997, by Ordinance 97-28. At the time Petitioners initiated their challenge, Section 2.01.03M of the Land Development Code provided n pertinent part: Section 2.01.03M COASTAL CENTER (CC): The areas within this mixed use land use district are primarily residential, allowing medium density residential densities and supporting uses. . . Uses Allowed: The uses allowed in this district include: Public uses Civic uses Workplace, limited to offices and artisanal uses General Commercial Residential Multifamily Residential Residential Density Allowed: The maximum allowable density for residential development in this district is eight (8) units per acre (8 units/1 acre). Commercial Intensity Allowed: Commercial and industrial development within this district shall have a maximum floor area ration of 1.5 and an impervious surface ratio of .75. Section 2.01.04A of the Land Development Code provides in pertinent part: General Commercial - A wide variety of general commercial, commercial recreational, entertainment, and related activities is included in this group of uses: department stores; hospitals; hotels or motels; LP gas storage and distribution facilities below 1,000 gallons; marinas; miniature golf, driving ranges; outdoor arenas, rodeo grounds, livestock auction facilities, racetracks (auto, dog, go-cart, horse, motorcycle), shooting and firing ranges, and similar activities; miniwarehouses; plant nurseries; recreation vehicle and travel trailer parks; shopping centers; taverns, bars, lounges, nightclubs, and dance halls; theaters and auditoriums; vehicle sales, rental, service, and repair, including carwash facilities, and the sales, rental, repair and service of new or used automobiles, boats, buses, farm equipment, motorcycles, trucks, recreational vehicles, and mobile homes; veterinary offices and animal hospitals; mobile home parks; indoor recreational uses; all neighborhoods serving commercial/retail uses; mini storage; and inventory storage as part of a business. Petitioners reside at 139 North Holiday Road, Destin, Florida 32541 in Walton County, Florida, which is designated in the Coastal Center category on the Future Land Use Map of Walton County's Comprehensive Plan. In the County's Response to Petition I dated March 31, 1998, the County acknowledged that "industrial" land uses are not allowed within the Coastal Center category under the Comprehensive Plan, and that, therefore, this provision of the Land Development Code is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The County also responded that, "Retail, entertainment, restaurants, services, and lodging are general commercial uses." The Comprehensive Plan limits the commercial uses in the Coastal Center category to those uses. The County intended that any use listed in the Land Development Code under general commercial which is not retail, entertainment, restaurant, services, or lodging is not allowed in Coastal Center. On May 18, 1998, an informal hearing was conducted by the Department at the Walton County Courthouse Board Room. Each Petitioner and the County were provided opportunities to present written or oral evidence to the Department to aid it in reaching a determination about consistency. After the informal hearing the Department determined that Section 2.01.03M of the Code was inconsistent with the Walton County Comprehensive Plan. In its Determination of Inconsistency, the Department found that, because Section 2.01.03M.3. of the Code allows industrial uses in the Coastal Center, when such land uses are not permitted in the Coastal Center under the Comprehensive Plan, Section 2.01.03M.3 of the Land Development Code is inconsistent with Policy L-1.1.1(B)(5) of the Plan. The Department also found that because Section 2.01.03M, when read together with Section 2.01.04A of the Land Development Code, expands on the type of commercial uses permitted within the Coastal Center land use district under Policy L-1.1.1(B)(5) of the Comprehensive Plan, Section 2.01.03M of the Code is inconsistent with the Plan. On November 16, 1998, the County adopted the following amendments to its Land Development Code by Ordinance No. 98-21: Section 2.01.03M. COASTAL CENTER(CC): The areas within this mixed use land use district are primarily residential densities and supporting uses . . . Uses Allowed: The uses allowed in this district include: Public uses Civic uses Workplace, limited to offices and artisanal uses Commercial shall be for retail, entertainment, restaurant, services and lodging Residential Multifamily Residential Residential Density Allowed: The maximum allowable density for residential development in this district is eight units per acre (8 units/1 acre). Commercial Intensity Allowed: Commercial development within this district shall have a maximum floor area ration of 1.5 and an impervious surface ratio of .75. The amendment to Section 2.01.03M of Walton County's Land Development Code is virtually identical in language to the language of Policy L-1.1.(B)(5) of Walton County's Comprehensive Plan. Section 2.01.03M of the Land Development Code as amended clearly is consistent with the Walton County Comprehensive Plan.
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Panama City's small scale development amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2055.1 on February 8, 2005, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Creekstone is a limited liability corporation and presumed to be the owner of a 3.212-acre tract of land at 305 East Beach Drive, Panama City.3 (The record does not show when or if Creekstone actually purchased the property; when the application for a land use change on the property was filed with the City, Creekstone was a contract purchaser. In its Proposed Recommended Order, however, the City states that Creekstone "recently acquired" the property.) The property lies at the northwest edge of a residential area known as The Cove and is just south of the central business district of the City. The Cove is separated from the business district by a small waterbody known as Massalina Bayou (Bayou), which is spanned by the Tarpon Bridge (Bridge) at one of the Bayou's most narrow points. The 225-foot Bridge provides the most direct and easiest access between the two areas of the City. For many years, and beginning before the City adopted its Plan, Tibbetts Boat Works, Inc. (Tibbets) occupied the site and was engaged in the boat repair business, consisting of hull repair, engine maintenance, other mechanical services, and boat bottom painting, a legal but nonconforming use under the City's land development code. Photographs of the area suggest that the business is no longer active, presumably because the property has been sold. On or about December 8, 2004, SFB Investment Company, LLLP (SFB), who then owned the property but had a contract to sell it to Creekstone, filed an application with the City Planning Board seeking a change in the land use and zoning on the property. At the Planning Board meeting on January 10, 2005, the staff noted that the proposed change would "allow an encroachment of commercial into a predominately residential area" and recommended denial of the application on the ground that the change "is inconsistent with the LDR and the Comp Plan."4 By a 3-1 vote, the City Planning Board rejected the staff recommendation and recommended that the application be approved. On February 8, 2005, by a 4-1 vote, the City accepted the recommendation of the City Planning Board and adopted Ordinance No. 2055.1, which amended the FLUM by reclassifying the land use designation on the property from MU to GC for the purpose of allowing the owner to "develop [a] multi-family project on [the] property." (Simultaneously with that change, the City also changed the zoning on the property from Mixed Use- 3 to General Commercial-2, which allows a wide range of activities, including residential, professional office and services, low-intensity commercial, public/institutional/ utilities, and high-intensity commercial.) The MU land use classification "is intended to provide areas for medium to high density residential development and low intensity commercial development," allows a density of "not more than twenty (20) dwelling units per acre," and an intensity of "[n]o more than 75% lot coverage as determined by the size of the lot compared to the amount of impervious roof and driveway/ parking lot surface." On the other hand, the GC district is "intended to provide areas for high intensity commercial development, including retail sales and services, wholesale sales, shopping centers, office complexes, and other similar land uses." There are no density restrictions, but intensity is limited to "[n]o more than 90% lot coverage." Thus, while the two land uses are similar in some respects, the highest and best use on the property will now be "high intensity commercial development," such as shopping centers and office complexes, a much more intensive use than is presently permitted under the MU land use category. To address this concern, witness Harper indicated that SFB has filed a restrictive covenant on the property which includes a shoreline buffer, as well as use, height, and setback restrictions. At the Planning Board meeting on January 10, 2005, however, the staff stated "that a covenant would not be enforceable." Under the existing land use (MU), the owner can construct up to 64 residential units on the property. That number is derived by multiplying the size of the property (3.212 acres) times the allowed density (20 units per acre). However, the current zoning on the property (which is apparently tied to the MU land use category) prohibits the construction of buildings which exceed 65 feet in height. Because of this height restriction, which limits the number of residential units that can be constructed on the property, the owner has requested a change in the land use (and zoning) so that it can develop a multi-family residential condominium project (nine stories in height) with approximately 77 units. On March 10, 2005, Mr. Cooper filed his Petition challenging the small-scale amendment. He later filed an Amended Petition on April 21, 2005. Mr. Cooper resides and owns property one-half block south of the subject property (in an area designated as a special historical zone of the City) and submitted objections to the amendment during the adoption process. As such, he is an affected person and has standing to file this challenge. Joint Exhibit 9 reflects that Creekstone is a "contract purchaser" of the subject property. It also reflects that it appeared through counsel at the adoption hearing on February 8, 2005, and offered comments in support of the plan amendment. As such, Creekstone is an affected person and has standing to participate in this case. In the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Mr. Cooper (through his former counsel) identified numerous issues, many of which were not raised in his Amended Petition. At hearing, however, he contended only that the GC land use is incompatible with the character of the surrounding area, and that the amendment is internally inconsistent with Objectives 1.1 and 1.4 and Policies 1.1.1, 1.2.1, and 1.4.1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Plan. All of the objectives and policies relate to the compatibility issue. In all other respects, Petitioner agrees that the plan amendment is in compliance. Because the City's action involves a small scale (as opposed to a large scale) development plan amendment, the Department of Community Affairs did not formally review the plan amendment for compliance. See § 163.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat. The Subject Property West Beach Drive runs in a northwest-southeast direction through the downtown business portion of the City until a few blocks north of the Bridge, where it changes to East Beach Drive. The roadway continues south across the Bridge and in a southerly direction along the eastern edge of St. Andrews Bay, a much larger waterbody which lies between the City and Panama City Beach. Approximately one-half mile south of the Bridge, East Beach Drive takes a 90-degree turn to the east. Most, if not all, of the peninsula south of the Bayou and Bridge and continuing until East Beach Drive turns to the east is known as The Cove, a part of which has been designated by the City as a historic special treatment zone because of its historical significance. The predominate character of The Cove is older, single-family homes. As noted above, the Bayou separates The Cove from the central business district and serves as a natural barrier between the two areas. The property is an odd-shaped parcel which sits just east of the southern terminus of the Bridge and fronts on the Bayou. (The central business district lies directly across the Bayou to the north and northwest, is classified as General Commercial or Public/Institutional, and includes a wide array of offices, government buildings, restaurants, and other commercial and public uses.) The western side of the property faces East Beach Drive. Immediately across East Beach Drive to the west (and facing St. Andrews Bay) is the Cove Harbor Condominium, a nine-story, multi-family residential condominium which was apparently constructed under MU standards, which apply to that parcel. Immediately to the east of the property is a single- family residence and then a two-story townhouse complex. The southern boundary of the property (which appears to run approximately 325 feet or so) faces East Second Court, a local road which begins on East Beach Drive and runs eastward until Watson Bayou (perhaps a mile or so away). Although a map of the historical district was not introduced into evidence by the parties, the northern and western reaches of the special treatment zone appear to begin just east of the intersection of East Second Court and East Beach Drive since the homes at 114 and 122 East Second Court are designated as having historical significance. See Respondent's Exhibit 4. These two homes appear to lie directly across the street from the southern boundary of Creekstone's property. Except for a two-story, multi-family structure (Cedar Cove Townhouses) which sits across East Second Court facing the southwest corner of the subject property, the remainder of the southern boundary of Creekstone's property faces four single-family homes. Several other multi-family structures are scattered throughout the area to the south and east, while the remainder of the neighborhood extending for at least one-half mile to the south and all the way to Watson Bayou on the east is predominately single-family residences. Finally, a condominium is located about one-half mile south of the property on the waterfront where East Beach Drive makes a 90-degree turn to the east. Except for Tibbets' activities, there is no commercial encroachment (by non-conforming use or land use classification) in the immediate area south of the Bridge and Bayou. The current FLUM shows that, with three exceptions, the entire area south of the Bridge and the Bayou to the end of the peninsula, and extending east at least a mile to Watson Bayou, is either classified as Mixed Use or Residential Low Density. (Perhaps a mile or so to the southeast there is one parcel classified as Recreation, another as Public/Institutional (which is probably a school), and a smaller adjoining parcel classified as General Commercial.) Thus, if the change is approved, the subject property will be the only parcel south of the Bridge and Bayou (except for the above exceptions which lie around a mile away) which is classified as commercial; the remainder is either mixed use or residential. Over the years, Tibbets has been the subject of City code enforcement actions, investigations by City code enforcement personnel, and investigations by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). It has also caused chronic environmental problems in the area. On August 27, 2002, DEP and Tibbets executed a Consent Order to resolve certain violations. Also, on April 10, 2001, Mr. Paul L. Benfield, who apparently either owned Tibbets or was associated with it in some manner, entered into a Consent Order with DEP because of his unlawful filling of 0.114 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the site. It is fair to describe the subject property as blighted, unsightly, and in disrepair. Photographs received in evidence suggest that the business is no longer active. The parcel is fenced on three sides, and, besides an older structure which apparently housed Tibbets' office, the property contains a mixture of empty storage crates, pilings, and various pieces of equipment that were once used in the boat repair business. There are also several docks or small piers extending into the Bayou from the northwestern corner of the site. Finally, it appears that much of the eastern half of the parcel contains wetlands and is largely undeveloped. Although the staff report dated December 31, 2004, recommended denial of the application, noting that it would allow "an encroachment of commercial into a predominately residential area," it acknowledged that "[a]llowing this request can make a case for helping to rid this area of a problematic non- conforming use." See Joint Exhibit 6, page 2. Petitioner's Objections As narrowed at hearing, Mr. Cooper contends only that the plan amendment is not compatible with the character of the adjoining land in The Cove and is thus internally inconsistent with Objectives 1.1 and 1.4 and Policies 1.1.1, 1.2.1, and 1.4.1 of the FLUE. He also relies upon Policy 2.5.5(6)(e) of the City's Land Development Code. However, plan amendments do not have to be consistent with land development regulations in order to be in compliance. See § 163.3184(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Objective 1.1 requires that the City maintain a FLUM "which coordinates future land uses with . . . [compatibility]5 of adjacent land uses." Policy 1.1.1, which furthers that objective, provides in part that the City will regulate land uses through the designation of land use districts on a FLUM, and that the "location and extent of development within the City" should be "consistent with . . . compatibility of adjacent land uses." Under this objective and policy, then, land use districts on the FLUM should be located in a manner which assures compatibility with adjacent land uses. Objective 1.4 provides that the City shall "maintain procedures for the elimination or reduction of land uses inconsistent with the character of the City and the future land uses designated in the Plan." In furtherance of that objective, Policy 1.4.1 requires that the City "restrict proposed development which is inconsistent with the character of the community." Taken literally, the objective encourages the City to reduce or eliminate land uses that are inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area or other land use districts. In the same fashion, the policy requires that the City prohibit development that is not consistent with the character of the adjoining area. Finally, among other things, Policy 1.2.1 requires that the City "administer land development regulations for implementation of the Comprehensive Plan" in such a manner as to "ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses." (The City has adopted such regulations for this purpose.) Because the implementation of land development regulations is not in issue, the provision does not appear to be relevant. According to the City's Director of Public Works, The Cove, or at least that part which lies in the area around Creekstone's property, is considered to be a part of the central business district since the two areas are "contiguous," and therefore the extension of the commercial land use district across the Bayou would be consistent with the character of the immediate area. The same view was also expressed by witness Grey. However, the two areas are physically separated by a waterbody (the Bayou) and are connected only by a 225-foot bridge which spans the Bayou at one of its most narrow points. At the same time, the land uses in the two areas are distinctly different: the business district contains a wide array of commercial and public/institutional uses while the predominate character of The Cove is single-family residential, with a scattering of multi-family residential dwellings such as townhouses and a condominium. The fact that the City interprets its GC district (presumably through its zoning regulations) as allowing certain residential uses does not change this dichotomy in character. Therefore, it is inappropriate to consider The Cove and the central business district as being contiguous, or to base a finding of compatibility on the fact that commercial uses are now found across the Bayou in the business district. The commercial land use classification has never been extended into the residential neighborhood south of the Bayou. If the change becomes effective, the new land use would be incompatible with the Residential Low Density and Mixed Use land uses which now make up the entire neighborhood. It would also be incompatible with the historic special treatment zone, which lies directly across the street from Creekstone's property. Finally, the creation of a commercial district in this area of The Cove would change the character of the neighborhood, and it is fair to infer that, even if SFB's covenant is enforceable, it would still lead to, and justify, the reclassification of other nearby parcels into commercial uses. Given these considerations, the proposed land use is internally inconsistent with the City's objective and policy that there be "[compatibility] of adjacent land uses," see Objective 1.1 and Policy 1.1.1, and Plan provisions encouraging the elimination of land uses and associated development which are inconsistent with the "character of the community." See Objective 1.4 and Policy 1.4.1. The minutes of the two meetings which culminated in the adoption of Ordinance No. 2055.1 reflect that the City's (and Planning Board's) principal rationale for the reclassification of the property was to eliminate an unsightly nonconforming use (boat repair business) which occupied the site. While it is true that the City's Plan encourages the revitalization and redevelopment of blighted areas, and provides that developers should be given "flexibility" when seeking to revitalize blighted areas, see Objectives 1.3 and 1.15 of the FLUE, there is no evidence that these objectives are intended to override (and trump) the provisions of the Plan which require that adjacent land uses be compatible with one another and preserve the character of the neighborhood.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2055.1 is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether a development order adopted by Respondent City of Marathon by Resolution PC00-09-04 is consistent with the comprehensive plan, land development regulations, and statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent City of Marathon (Marathon) was incorporated on November 30, 1999. It adopted as its land development regulations (LDR) the LDRs of Monroe County in effect at the time of Marathon's incorporation. Marathon is within The Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. This case involves a development order that Marathon issued to Respondent Banana Bay of Marathon, Inc. (BB). As Planning Commission Resolution 00-09-04, the development order authorizes BB to add 12 motel rooms to an existing motel in return for imposing certain restrictions on the use of wet slips at its adjacent marina that is part of the same motel/marina development. The restrictions require the removal of cable television connections from 12 slips and limitation upon vessels using these 12 slips to those without plumbing facilities. For the remaining wet slips at the marina, the development order requires BB to limit their use to no more than 18 vessels at one time and to provide mandatory sewage pumpout for these vessels. At various points in the record and this recommended order, references to a "transfer" of 12 marina slips for 12 motel rooms refer to the conditions set forth in this paragraph. BB owns 7.39 acres of upland and 2.67 acres of adjacent bay bottom in Marathon at mile marker 49.5 (Subject Property or, as developed, Banana Bay). The Subject Property runs from U.S. Route 1 to the water. The Subject Property contains 60 motel rooms in two buildings, a conference room, a motel office, support buildings, three apartments suitable for employee use, and a marina. The marina includes 40-50 slips, depending upon the size of the moored vessels. The Subject Property is zoned Suburban Commercial (SC) and Mixed Use (MU). About 2.4 acres (104,544 square feet) running about 350 feet from U.S. Route 1 is SC. About 4.99 acres (217,364 square feet) is zoned MU. The additional 2.67 acres of adjacent bay bottom are also zoned MU, although the submerged acreage is unimportant for reasons discussed below. Twenty-five of the motel rooms are in SC, and 35 of the motel rooms are in MU, although the distinction between zoning districts is also unimportant for reasons discussed below. LDR Code Section 9.5-267 authorizes ten "rooms" per ”acre" as "allocated density" for motel uses in SC and MU and 15 "rooms" per "buildable acre" as "maximum net density" for motel uses in SC and MU. (There is no difference between "hotels" and "motels" in this case; all references to "motels" include "hotels.") Three fundamental questions emerge concerning the application of these two density limitations to this case. The first is whether BB must satisfy both the "allocated density" and "maximum net density" limitation. This is not a difficult issue; BB's proposal must satisfy each of these density limitations. The second question is what is included in the areas under each of these density limitations. Notwithstanding the use of "gross acres" in the "allocated density" formula, it is necessary to net out certain areas--just less than is netted out in the "maximum net density" formula. The third question is what constitutes a "room." When applied to marine-based units, the definition of a "room" presents a difficult and important issue. As a whole, the LDRs imply that no marine-based dwelling units should count as "rooms," but one provision specifically requires the inclusion of "live-aboard" units in density calculations. The first question requires little analysis. As noted below in the discussion of the two types of areas, "allocated density" and "maximum net density" provide two separate measures of the intensity of use of land. The allowable density for "maximum net density" is never less than the allowable density for "allocated density" because "maximum net density" is a safeguard to ensure that, after netting out from the parcel those areas reserved for open space, setbacks, and buffers, the intensity of use will not be excessive. Nothing whatsoever in the LDRs suggests that Marathon may issue a development order for a proposal that satisfies the "maximum net density," but not the "allocated density." These two densities limitations operate in tandem, not in the alternative. The calculation of the "allocated density" requires consideration of the second and third questions identified above. The issue of area seems straightforward. LDR Code Section 9.5-4(D-3) defines "density or allocated density" as "the number of dwelling units or rooms allocated per gross acre of land by the plan." LDR Code Section 9.5-4(D-4) defines "maximum net density" as "the maximum density permitted to be developed per unit of land on the net buildable area of a site, as measured in dwelling units or rooms per acre." LDR Code Section 9.5-4(G-4) defines "gross area" as "the total acreage of a site less submerged lands and any dedicated public rights-of-way." LDR Code Section 9.5-4(N-4) defines "net buildable area" as "that portion of a parcel of land which is developable and is not open space required by section 9.5-262 or 9.5-343 or required minimum bufferyard under article VII division 11 or required setbacks under section 9.5-281." The area of land involved in determining "allocated density" is greater than the area of land involved in determining "maximum net density." But the area of land involved in determining "allocated density" is itself a net amount. The LDRs expressly require reducing the gross areas by any submerged land and dedicated public rights-of-way. However, any reasonable application of the LDRs also requires reducing the gross areas used for the motel "allocated density" calculation by the minimum areas required to support other uses on the Subject Property. If the only use of the Subject Property were motel rooms, the "allocated density" limit of ten units per acre (10:1) would allow 73.9 rooms. But the Marathon Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 18, 2000, correctly netted from the Subject Property the land areas required to support the commercial aspects of the hotel and the commercial apartments. These reductions leave a total of 5.86 acres available to support the motel rooms. At a density of 10:1, the Subject Property could therefore support a total of 58 motel rooms. The Planning Commission incorrectly used the 15:1 ratio for "maximum net density" in concluding that the Subject Property could support a total of 67.65 motel rooms. Evidently, the Planning Commission used the "maximum net density" because it was not using "gross area" or "gross acres" (the terms are synonymous under the Code) in calculating the area. The netting reduction necessary to calculate whether BB's proposal satisfies the "maximum net density" limitation would require the calculation of the area of the Subject Property that must be devoted to open space, setbacks, and buffers. The Planning Commission probably undertook this step in calculating the "maximum net density" for the Subject Property, as its figures seem to include unstated deductions for the 20 percent open space plus another factor, probably for setbacks and buffers--all of which are discussed in its report. However, the Planning Commission erroneously neglected to apply the "allocated density" limitation to the "gross acres," exclusive of submerged land, public rights-of-way, and the minimum land required to support the other upland uses. As noted above, doing so would have yielded no more than 58 motel rooms. At present, the Subject Property contains 60 hotel or motel rooms. The Subject Property therefore cannot support the addition of another 12 hotel or motel rooms, given its "allocated density" of only 58 rooms. In general, BB justifies the addition of 12 rooms to the front motel by arguing that it is only transferring these units from the 12 existing wet slips. It is unnecessary to determine whether a transfer under these facts is lawful when, if these 12 slips count as units, the Subject Property is already 14 units over its "allocated density." The resolution of the third question--what constitutes a "room"--dispenses with this argument. Thirty of the existing 40-50 boat slips in the marina have water, electric, and cable hook-ups and are presently used for some form of habitation. Most vessels berth at the marina for two or three days, although the average stay is slightly over one month. The average stay at the 30 slips offering utilities, though, is two to three months. Typically, two persons use a vessel berthed at the marina for more than a couple of days. BB seals the discharge ports of all vessels mooring at the marina for any appreciable period of time. BB provides a sewage pumpout service for these and other vessels. The wastewater from the marina operations goes to a septic tank, in contrast to the wastewater from the motel operations, which goes to an onsite package plant. Persons mooring at the marina for at least two months normally obtain telephone service and may obtain cable television service, in addition to the potable water and electrical services provided by BB. The marina also provides rest rooms, laundry facilities, showers, a bar, limited food service, and a mail box. However, BB rules require that all persons berthing at the marina register a permanent address because the slips are "not considered permanent housing." At the request of the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and the Monroe County Planning Department, BB has limited rental agreements at the marina to a maximum of one month, although some persons enter into back-to-back rental agreements. Persons staying more than one week often have cars. Contrary to BB's contentions, none of these slips provides additional density for the Subject Property, and therefore the 12 slips are not available for transfer to the motel. For the same reason, as discussed below, the proposed transfer of the 12 units would also violate the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO). In two respects, the record reveals that the conversion of marine-based residential uses to upland residential uses might facilitate the achievement of important land use planning objectives. First, the wastewater collected from the marina is directed to a septic tank, and the wastewater collected from the motel is directed to a package plant. Absent a significantly reduced flow from the marine-based residential use, the upland residential use would therefore impact the adjacent waters to a lesser extent. Second, marine-based residential users may be more reluctant to evacuate for an approaching hurricane than upland residential users. Absent a significantly greater number of visitors during hurricane season if the 12 units were taken from the marina slips and added to the motel, the upland residential use might therefore facilitate timely hurricane evacuation of the vulnerable Keys. However, the record was relatively undeveloped on these two points, and these possible advantages to the conversion of marine-based residential uses to upland-based residential uses do not override the LDRs. The LDRs may treat the more intense residential use associated with "live-aboards" differently than the less intense residential use associated with other moored vessels. Although the LDRs' treatment of "live-aboards" may not be entirely consistent, any inconsistency is irrelevant in this case because the moored vessels at the Banana Bay marina do not qualify as "live-aboards." As stipulated for the purpose of this case, LDR Code Section 9.5-4(T-4) defines a "transient residential unit" as "a dwelling unit used for transient housing such as a hotel or motel room, or space for parking a recreational vehicle or travel trailer." LDR Code Section 9.5-4(D-31) defines a "dwelling unit" as "one (1) or more rooms physically arranged to create a housekeeping establishment for occupancy by one (1) family with separate toilet facilities." LDR Code Sections 9.5-4(D-23) through 9.5-4(D-30) identify the various types of dwellings that may contain "dwelling units.” These dwellings are, respectively, detached zero-lot-line dwellings, multifamily apartment dwellings, attached dwellings, detached individual dwellings, duplex dwellings, commercial apartment dwellings, rooftop dwellings, and townhouse dwellings. The frequent references to "open yards" in these definitions precludes the application of these definitions to moored vessels, even "live- aboards." The exclusion of all moored vessels, including "live-aboards," from density calculations is also suggested by two other portions of the LDRs. As is typical, LDR Code Section 9.5-120.1 provides that the mechanism for enforcing density limitations is in the issuance of building permits, but this enforcement mechanism is of doubtful use in regulating vessel moorings, which do not typically involve the issuance of a building permit. Also, the density definitions discussed above both refer to the development of various types of residential uses on "land." Moreover, none of the zoning districts established in Marathon's LDRs measures the intensity of marina uses, including vessels moored for extended periods as live-aboards, by imposing some sort of marine density limitation, either by including the moored dwelling units or the submerged acreage. Because the LDRs did not intend to include such marine-based uses in density calculations, LDR Code Section 9.5-267, which is a table setting forth "allocated densities" and "maximum net densities," covers only upland-based uses, including recreational vehicle or campground spaces per acre, and does not extent to marine-based uses, such as live-aboard marina slips. However, two provisions in the LDRs require density calculations to include "live-aboards." LDR Code Section 9.5-308, which seems to be an older provision in the LDRs, provides that "each live-aboard shall count as a dwelling unit for the purpose of calculating density limitations in the district in which it is permitted." Better incorporated into the present regulatory scheme of the LDRs, LDR Code Section 9.5-120.1 defines a "residential dwelling unit" as a "dwelling unit," including a "transient rental unit," as defined in LDR Code Section 9.5-4(T-3), and "live-aboard vessels," as defined in LDR Code Section 9.5-4(L-6). However, LDR Code Section 9.5-4((L-6) states that a "live-aboard vessel" is "any vessel used solely as a residence or any vessel represented as a place of business, a professional or other commercial enterprise, or a legal residence." The record does not suggest that any of the moored vessels were used "solely" as a residence, as distinguished, for instance, from a vessel used for residential and recreational purposes, or that any of the mixed-use vessels served as the occupants' legal residence. Absent a finding that the moored vessels constitute "transient residential units," ROGO does not support this proposed transfer of residential uses from marine-based to upland-based. LDR Code Section 9.5-123(f)(3) authorizes the transfer of an existing "residential dwelling unit" from one site to another within the same subarea. However, LDR Code Section 9.5-122 defines a "residential dwelling unit" to extend only to "live-aboards." For the reasons already discussed, the less intense residential uses associated with the vessels moored at Banana Bay's marina preclude their treatment as "residential dwelling units" eligible for transfer to the motel. Petitioner has proved that the development order is materially inconsistent with the LDRs. LDR provisions governing the density and intensity of residential development go to the heart of effective land use planning, especially in an area as sensitive as the Keys. For these reason, it is unnecessary to consider the consistency of the development order with the more general provisions of Marathon's comprehensive plan, on which Marathon's LDRs are based.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order denying the request of Banana Bay of Marathon, Inc., to approve the transfer of 12 slips to 12 rooms in a motel on the Subject Property. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara L. Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Charles Canaday, General Counsel Office of the Governor Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1001 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Mitchell A. Bierman Weiss Serota 2665 South Bayshore Drive Suite 420 Miami, Florida 33133 James S. Mattson James S. Mattson, P.A. Post Office Box 586 Key Largo, Florida 33037
The Issue The issue is whether two map changes on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Taylor County (County) by Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17 on December 15, 2009, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The Department is the state planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving amendments to comprehensive plans adopted by local governments. The County is a local government that administers a Plan. It adopted the two plan amendments that are the subject of this proceeding. It is considered a "rural" county with a current population of around 20,000 residents. Dr. Hutchins owns property in the County. Although his initial pleading alleges, and his Proposed Recommended Order states, that he "submitted oral comments regarding the subject amendments at transmittal and prior to adoption of the amendment," no evidence was presented at hearing that Dr. Hutchins did so during the adoption process. Ms. Redding and Mr. Wood are siblings and along with three other members of the Wood family jointly own property in the County. Like Dr. Hutchins, no evidence was presented at the hearing that either Intervenor submitted written or oral comments to the County during the adoption process. History Preceding the Amendments The process for adopting the County's first Plan, including the FLUM, began around 1988. For the purpose of drafting a FLUM, a Planning Board (Board) was created consisting of seven individuals, all of whom were volunteers with no formal planning experience. However, they received advice and assistance from two outside consultants, who also advised the County concerning the appropriate text to be used in the new Plan. Four members of the Board, including its former Chairman, testified at the final hearing. Over the next two years, the Board conducted meetings, spoke with numerous property owners, and collected information in order to assign each parcel an appropriate land use category. The collective efforts of the Board culminated in a large, hand- colored FLUM (consisting of numerous sections of aerial maps patched together) that was affixed to the wall of what is now the courtroom on the second floor in the County Courthouse. Testimony by former members of the Board established that the Hutchins parcel (then owned by Colin and Lucille Kelly) and the Bird Island parcel (owned by Wood, Redding, and other family members) were assigned a classification of Mixed Use-Urban Development. Because the County does not have a zoning code, the properties were never assigned a zoning classification consistent with that land use category. This classification was based upon the fact that at least two different businesses were being conducted on each parcel at the time, and the owners requested that they be given that classification. In the case of the Hutchins (then Kelly) property, it was being used to conduct a commercial fishing operation as well as a small construction company (with dump trucks, bulldozers, and front end loaders) that had a contract with Proctor & Gamble (now known as Buckeye Technologies, Inc.) to maintain roads. An office for the construction company was located in a separate mobile home placed on the property. Mr. Bird was a commercial fisherman and operated a wholesale fish business on Bird Island. Also, both he and his mother had separate homes on the property, another structure was used to store fish nets, and docking facilities for other commercial fisherman were maintained. Many of these structures were blown away during the so-called Storm of the Century on March 13, 1993, and never replaced. Except for property within the small communities of Keaton Beach, Dekle Beach, Denzel Beach, and Steinhatchee, and a few other small parcels, such as Dark Island, Cedar Island, and Intervenors' property, all of the remaining land along the coastline was placed in either Conservation or Agriculture. An unusual feature of the County is that it has one of the longest coastlines in the State (58 miles), stretching on the Gulf of Mexico from Jefferson County to Dixie County. Because around 88 percent of the coastline is owned by the State, very little waterfront land is left for development. In fact, Dr. Hutchins pointed out that except for his property and Bird Island, no other vacant, upland Gulf-front property within the County is in private ownership at this time. The FLUM, with the foregoing classifications, was adopted by the County by Ordinance No. 90-4 on June 19, 1990. Before it was submitted to the Department for its review, the County was advised by the Department that it would not accept the large, hand-colored FLUM in that format. Rather, the Department required that the map be reduced in size and digitized. To comply with this request, the original FLUM was dismantled into smaller sections and hand-carried to a firm in Crystal River that had the capability of reducing the large map into digital form. The original FLUM was then returned to the County Courthouse. When the larger map was reduced in size and converted to a digital format, it was not parcel-specific and failed to pick up the Hutchins parcel and Bird Island. Instead, except for larger tracts of land, especially in the small communities noted in Finding of Fact 8, the entire coastline was shown as being Conservation or Agriculture. This error was not detected by County officials or the affected property owners since they continued to rely upon the designations shown on the large, hand-colored FLUM in the Courthouse. The Department reviewed the FLUM, as digitized, assumed that the Hutchins and Bird Island property were Agriculture and Conservation, and found those parts of the FLUM to be in compliance. This agency action occurred on or about October 1, 1990. Thus, the Department never undertook a compliance review for either parcel with the intended higher density/intensity land use. In 1995, the room in which the original FLUM was mounted was taken over by another occupant of the Courthouse, and the original FLUM was moved to a different floor. During or after the moving process, it was lost or accidentally destroyed and its whereabouts have been unknown since that time. In 1993, Dr. Hutchins purchased his property from Colin and Lucille Kelly. Based on a conversation with a County employee, he purchased the property with the understanding that it was classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development. Although he had no specific plans to develop the property at that time, and still has none, the Mixed Use-Urban Development land use category was the major inducement for him to purchase the property. In 2005, Dr. Hutchins was approached by an investor who wished to develop the property at a later time. When the investor contacted the County to confirm its land use designation, Dr. Hutchins learned for the first time that the digitized map approved by the Department reflected the property carried an Agriculture/Rural Residential land use. Because of this, the agreement with the potential investor was never consummated. In a similar vein, Mr. Wood, who served on the Board that assigned land use designations to property on the original FLUM, and knew that the Board had designated his property as Mixed Use-Urban Development, placed the Bird Island property on the market in 2005 representing that it was classified in that category. A prospective purchaser checked with the County to verify its land use and learned that it was Conservation. Mr. Wood was unaware of this error until that time. Because of this, the sale was never consummated. After 2005, the County and Department held numerous meetings in an attempt to resolve this dispute. The Department refused to allow the FLUM to be changed to reflect the original land use designations. This led to the County adopting the two challenged amendments to correct what it characterizes as a "scrivener's error." Besides the two parcels that are in dispute here, on an undisclosed date, two other parcels (in the interior part of the County) were discovered by the County to have the wrong land use category as a result of the digitizing process. Both should have been placed in the Industrial land use category, and after a review, the Department had no objection to those errors being corrected by an amendment. The Plan Amendments On December 15, 2009, the County adopted Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17, also known as CPA 08-1 and CPA 08-3. The first amendment changed the land use on the 14-acre Hutchins parcel from Agriculture/Rural Residential to Mixed Use-Urban Development. The present land use allows one dwelling unit per 5 acres while the new land use designation allows up to 12 dwelling units per acre and a 60 percent impervious surface ratio for nonresidential development. See Department Exhibit 1, Future Land Use Policy I.3.2. Thus, up to 126 residential units and 96,476 square feet of non-residential development could be built on the Hutchins site. The second amendment changed the land use on the 3.36-acre Bird Island parcel from Agriculture-2 and Conservation to Mixed Use-Urban Development. The former land use allows one dwelling unit per 40 acres while the new land use would permit the same density/intensity as the Hutchins parcel. The new category would allow up to 30 residential units and 21,954 square feet of non-residential development. The amendments were transmitted by the County to the Department for its review in early April 2009. On June 5, 2009, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report. The Department lodged objections to both amendments generally on the grounds the sites are not environmentally suitable for the proposed density and intensity increases; the amendments authorize an improper increase in density within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) without proper mitigation; the amendments failed to discourage urban sprawl; and they are internally inconsistent with existing provisions within the Plan. The ORC recommended that the County not adopt the amendments. Besides the Department, DEP and the Regional Planning Council also provided written comments on the amendments. By letter dated May 8, 2009, DEP generally noted that it had concerns regarding development adjacent to the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve (the Preserve) where the parcels are located, and that careful planning strategies should be used for any development on the land. See Department Exhibit 4. The Regional Planning Council issued a staff report on February 25, 2010, generally concluding that the amendments were consistent with the applicable Strategic Regional Policy Plan goals and objectives. See Department Exhibit 15; County Exhibit 1. The County did not respond in writing to the ORC. On December 15, 2009, it adopted the amendments without change. On March 10, 2010, the Department published its Notice of Intent to find the amendments not in compliance in the Taco Times. On March 16, 2010, the Department filed its Petition with DOAH raising the same grounds that are in its Notice of Intent. The Property The Hutchins parcel is located in the southwest part of the County, a few miles south of Keaton Beach, with around 500 to 600 feet fronting on the Gulf of Mexico. The 14 upland acres that are the subject of this case are a sub-site of a larger 25-acre parcel owned by Dr. Hutchins, with the remaining 11 acres being adjoining wetlands on the north and south sides. Dr. Hutchins has built a home on pilings on his property along with a smaller ancillary structure. Photographs indicate that except for trees, the remainder of the upland property is vacant. Bird Island also lies on the Gulf of Mexico just northwest of the Hutchins parcel and is surrounded by water on three sides. Photographs reflect one residence and a dock still on the property. The two parcels are separated by "marsh grass and a little water." Both parcels of property are easily accessible to, and just west of, County Road 361, a paved two- lane highway that begins south of the subject properties and runs adjacent to, or near, the coastline, eventually turning northeast and terminating on U.S. Highway 19 south of Perry. Both properties abut portions of the Gulf of Mexico that have been designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The waters are a part of the Preserve, which was established in 1985 and is managed by DEP. The Preserve has exceptional biological, aesthetic, and scientific value. The two parcels are located in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). That is to say, they are in "the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. In order to increase density within the CHHA, the County must meet certain criteria set forth in Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department's Objections As summarized in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department contends that the two plan amendments are not in compliance because the sites are not environmentally suitable for the proposed density and intensity increases; there is an improper increase in density within the CHHA without proper mitigation; and the amendments fail to discourage urban sprawl. Although the Notice of Intent also raised the issue of whether the amendments are internally inconsistent with other provisions in the County's existing Plan, the Proposed Recommended Order does not address any specific internal inconsistencies, and the evidence focuses on the first three concerns. Therefore, the undersigned has assumed that those objections have been withdrawn or abandoned. Environmental Suitability With the exception of an area in the middle part of the County's coastline (where the Fenholloway River flows into the Gulf), the Preserve extends along the County's entire coastline, including the area in which the two parcels are located. The Preserve, designated as an OFW, contains various types of seagrasses, whose function is to provide habitat for a number of species, improve water quality, and reduce currents or wave energy in the event of a storm. It is undisputed that the seagrass beds near the amendment sites are high-quality, healthy, and of high environmental value. Coastal marshes are prevalent in the area of the County where the amendment sites are located. They serve many functions, including cleaning water flowing into The Preserve, functioning as a habitat for a number of species, and acting as a coastal barrier against storm surge during large storm events. Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes, requires that local governments protect and conserve natural resources through the conservation element of the local plan. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(3)(b)4. A Department rule also requires local governments to limit the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon water quality and living marine resources. See Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)1. High-density development (up to 12 units per acre) on the parcels clearly has the potential to negatively impact coastal marshes and seagrasses adjacent to and near the subject sites. Although Dr. Hutchins indicated that he would develop his property only to the extent allowed by DEP so that the marshes and seagrasses would be safeguarded, the Department's practice for many years has been to assume that the property will be developed at its maximum allowable density and intensity. See, e.g., Sheridan v. Lee Cty, et al., Case No. 90- 7791 (DOAH Jan. 27, 1992; DCA June 28, 1993; Admin. Comm. Feb. 15, 1994)(compliance determination must be made based on maximum impacts authorized by the amendment terms, not speculation of a lesser impact). Mr. Wood's development intentions are not known. In any event, the two parcels potentially authorize 156 residential units and 113,430 square feet of non-residential uses adjacent to an OFW. Even so, the Mixed Use-Urban Development land use designation may still be permissible if specific conditions limiting the density/intensity on the parcels are incorporated into the Plan by asterisk or text language in conjunction with a new amendment. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, this planning practice has been used in other cases. Without any limitations, though, the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the maximum allowable density/intensity contravenes the cited statute and rules. CHHA Both parcels are located within the CHHA of the County. Section 163.3178(2)(h), Florida Statutes, requires that the County establish mitigation criteria for plan amendments located in the CHHA. Probably because of its small size in terms of population, and the lack of development (or ability to do so) along the coastline, the County has no goals, objectives, or policies addressing criteria for mitigation. Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. requires that a plan "direct population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas." Also, Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)7. requires that a plan "maintain or reduce evacuation times." Prior to 2006, the Department would allow a local government to comply with the foregoing rules by allowing density increases in the CHHA if the local government decreased a similar type of density elsewhere. This practice was known as "offsets." In 2006, however, the Legislature amended the statute to include criteria for compliance with the two rules. Due to the change in the law, the Department no longer engages in the practice of offsets for land use changes in the CHHA. Instead, it requires a local government that proposes to increase density within the CHHA to meet the requirements of Section 163.3178(9)(a)1.-3., Florida Statutes. Under the statute, if the County can demonstrate a 16-hour out-of-county evacuation time for a category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale and a 12-hour evacuation time to shelter within the County for a category 5 storm event, an increase in density within the CHHA may be allowed. See § 163.3178(9)(a)1. and 2., Fla. Stat. Alternatively, the County may use one of the mitigation measures described in Section 163.3178(9)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Except for Coastal Element Objective IX-7 of the Plan, which provides that the County maintain a hurricane evacuation time of 9 hours for a category 1 storm, see County Exhibit 7, no data and analysis, such as a hurricane evacuation study for a category 5 storm event, was presented to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Dr. Hutchins' submission during the mediation process of an evacuation plan for a category 3 storm does not satisfy this criterion. Typically, a local government will have an adopted plan for a category 5 storm, as well as an evacuation model. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the mitigation measures in Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes, have not been satisfied. At hearing, the County and Dr. Hutchins contended that offsets should still be used in this case to satisfy the mitigation requirements. They point out that the County has recently purchased property (totaling 51.7 acres) that is designated Mixed Use-Urban Development and more than compensates for any potential increase of residents needing to evacuate if the two amendments are found to be in compliance. As noted above, however, the practice of offsets was discontinued in 2006 with the passage of the new law. Notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, there was no legal requirement that the Department notify every affected local government and property owner that it was discontinuing that practice to comply with the new law.2 Urban Sprawl Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1.-13. identifies thirteen "primary" indicators of urban sprawl. The Department contends that eight indicators are "tripped" or "triggered" by the new amendments and collectively they indicate that the proliferation of urban sprawl is not discouraged. No evidence was presented regarding five indicators. According to the rule, "[t]he presence and potential effects of multiple indicators shall be considered to determine whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006(5)(d). Indicator 1 is tripped if the amendments allow uses in excess of demonstrated need. In this case no need analysis for additional land in the Mixed Use-Urban Development category was submitted by the County. The absence of a study is sufficient to trigger this indicator. Indicator 2 is tripped if the amendments allow "significant" amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas. The only true existing "urban" area in the County, as that term is commonly understood, is the City of Perry. Other residential and some commercial development (but to a much lesser degree) is found mainly in a few small communities on the coastline such as Steinhatchee, an unincorporated community perhaps 15 miles south of the subject parcels with probably around 1,500 residents, and Keaton Beach and Dekle Beach, both having no more than a few hundred residents each. (Official recognition has been taken of the population data.) Keaton Beach is around 2 or 3 miles north of the subject property and has condominiums and other limited residential/commercial development. In addition, Dark Island is located a short distance north of Bird Island and is classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development, which authorizes the higher density/intensity development. Given this lack of "urban areas" in the County, virtually any development outside of Perry could arguably be considered "urban development . . . in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)2. Notwithstanding this unique (and perhaps unfair) situation, it is fair to characterize the potential addition of 12 units per acre as urban development and a total of around 150 residential units with associated commercial development as "substantial" when considering the County's size and existing development. Therefore, the second indicator has been triggered. Indicator 3 is triggered if the amendments allow urban development in "radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban development." Because urban development will occur in a rural, isolated area, this indicator is triggered. Indicator 4 is triggered if there is premature development of rural land that fails to adequately protect and conserve natural resources. The evidence supports a finding that this indicator is triggered. Indicators 6, 7, and 8 are related to the orderly and efficient provision of existing and future public services and facilities. The evidence shows that the area is not currently served by central sewer and is not near any fire or police stations. While no public facilities are planned for that area in the five year capital improvement schedule, at a meeting in March 2010 the Taylor County Coastal Water & Sewer District indicated that a request for partial federal funding to extend central sewer services to Fish Creek, which lies beyond and to the south of the subject parcels, would be placed on the April agenda. See County Exhibit 7. Whether a request was actually made at that meeting is not of record. In any event, Coastal Element Policy IX.6.5 provides that where central sewer is not available in an area classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development, septic tanks may be used within the CHHA. See Department Exhibit 1. As to fire and law enforcement support, there is insufficient evidence to establish that these services cannot be provided in an efficient manner. Given these circumstances, there is less than a preponderance of the evidence to support a finding that indicators 6 through 8 are triggered. Indicator 9 is triggered if the plan amendments fail to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that this indicator is triggered. Collectively, the presence of four indicators is sufficient to support a finding that the County has failed to discourage urban sprawl. E. Scrivener's Error The County and Intervenors rely heavily upon the fact that the plan amendments are in compliance because the amendments simply correct an error that occurred when, at the Department's direction in 1990, the original FLUM was reduced in size and digitized. While at first blush this argument is appealing, it assumes that the Department would have approved the new land use classifications in 1990 when it performed a compliance review of the original FLUM. But this never occurred, and the new amendments give the Department its first opportunity to determine if the new land uses are in compliance. It is undisputed that on an undisclosed date the Department approved an amendment based on the same type of error. While the record is somewhat confusing, it appears that in that case, the two properties were Industrial, they were not located in the CHHA, and on-going business concerns were operating on the properties. Intervenor Hutchins also cited several instances where mapping errors were allowed to be corrected by subsequent plan amendments. Where final agency action in those matters is of record, however, it shows that approval was given only after a compliance review was made by the Department.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that Plan Amendments CPA 08-1 and CPA 08-3 adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17 are not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Carla Brice, has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to a vested rights certificate to develop certain real property located in Alachua County, Florida without complying with the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. The property at issue in this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as "Lot 111"), consists of approximately 6 acres of real property located in Alachua County, Florida. Lot 111 is currently owned by the Petitioner, Carla Brice. Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111 through inheritance from her father, Carl L. Brice. Ms. Brice acquired the property in approximately January of 1993. Early History of the Development of Arredonda Estates. During the 1950s Mr. Brice acquired a platted subdivision in Alachua County known as Arredonda Estates Unit 1 (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 1"). Approximately 100 acres of property located adjacent to Unit 1 were also acquired by Mr. Brice. Unit 1 met the existing plat law of Alachua County. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 1 and the sale of lots therein. Part of the 100 acres acquired by Mr. Brice was subsequently platted and developed for sale as residential lots as Arredonda Estates Unit 2A (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2A"). Arredonda Estates Unit 2B (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2B") was to be located to the north of Unit 2A. Because of the lack of access out of Unit 2B, the then County engineer of the Alachua County, Roy J. Miller, informed Mr. Brice that he would not allow Mr. Brice to proceed with Unit 2B until Mr. Brice completed development of approximately 33 acres of real property located to the east of Unit 1. Mr. Miller believed that there would be better access from the various phases of Arredonda Estates if the 33 acres were developed first because there would be access out of the 33 acres onto County Road 24 and onto Broken Arrow Road to the east of the 33 acres. Mr. Miller, as the County engineer, wielded a great deal of influence in the development of property in Alachua County at the time Mr. Brice developed Units 1 and 2A and at the time he was beginning development of the 33 acres. Although the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Miller could have legally required Mr. Brice to develop the 33 acres before developing Unit 2B, the uncontroverted evidence proved that it was believed that Mr. Miller's approval was necessary in order to complete a development. The 33 acres surround Lot 111 on the east, west and north. The south boundary of Lot 111 is County Road 24, Archer Road. One of the two access roads to County Road 24 from the 33 acre development was located to the immediate east of Lot 111 and the other was located to the immediate west of Lot 111. Lot 111 is bounded on the south by County Road 24. The 33 acres were to be developed as Arredonda Estates (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 4"). The Development of Unit 4. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller that he was concerned about developing Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B because Mr. Brice planned to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. He did not plan to build the shopping center until all phases of Arredonda Estates were completed, including Unit 2B. In agreeing to develop Unit 4 before Unit 2B, Mr. Brice was concerned about making expenditures for larger drainage facilities and obtaining additional easements necessary for the development of Lot 111 before he planned to begin actual development of the shopping center. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller of these concerns. The shopping center Mr. Brice planned to develop was to consist of 296,000 square feet of paved surface and 50,000 square feet of roof area. These plans required a redesign of the drainage for Unit 4. In particular, the following modifications were necessary: In conclusion I find it necessary to change the diameter of pipe #7 from an 18 inch diameter to a 21 inch diameter, placed at a 0.15 percent slope pipe grade. Some necessary amendments are required at this point. The larger size pipe in place will cost $9.20 per linear foot. Some sixty-two feet are needed, therefore the total cost will be $570.40. Brice exhibit 9. Despite Mr. Brice's concerns, Mr. Miller continued to insist on the development of Unit 4 before Unit 2B and Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Unit 4 was platted on July 19, 1970. The plat was recorded in Plat Book H, Page 30, Official Records of Alachua County. The initial design of Unit 4 provided for one point of ingress and egress on to State Road 24 from Unit 4. Mr. Miller required that two points of ingress and egress be provided and Mr. Brice agreed. The evidence failed to prove that this requirement was agreed to in exchange for any representation from Alachua County that Mr. Brice would be allowed to develop the shopping center. The final plat provided two means of ingress and egress to State Road 24 and one means of ingress and egress to County Road Number Southwest 24-C (Broken Arrow Road). Lot 111 is contained on the plat. No intended use for Lot 111 was designated on the plat of Unit 4. The plat simply identifies the lot. See Brice exhibit 5. The plat identifies the development of residential lots only. The 33 acres was initially zoned as "A" (agriculture). In order to develop Unit 4 it was necessary to obtain approval of re-zoning of the property as R1C, residential use. The re-zoning of the 33 acres was sought and approved. Lot 111 was also zoned for agricultural use when acquired. On February 11, 1969, 4.27 acres of Lot 111 were re-zoned from "A" (agriculture) to "BR" (retail sales and service). On July 1, 1969, a special use permit allowing a mobile home trailer sales agency was issued for use of 1.1 acres contiguous to the 4.27 acre parcel of Lot 111 by Alachua County. On July 7, 1975, the 1.1 acres, which the special use permit had been issued for, was zoned from "A" to "BR." Construction plans for site improvements for Unit 4 were subsequently prepared, filed with Alachua County and were approved. See Brice exhibit 10. Included on the plans is a rectangular shape identified as "Proposed Shopping Center" containing indications of measurements representing 50,000 square feet of building space. The "Proposed Shopping Center" designation is located on Lot 111. Mr. Brice was subsequently informed that the site improvements for Unit 4 were approved by Alachua County. The evidence failed to prove, however, that Alachua County specifically considered or approved the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in approving the site improvement plans for Unit 4. The approved site improvements for Unit 4 were ultimately made and accepted by Alachua County in September of 1970. Government Action Relied Upon. Mr. Miller intended to allow Mr. Brice to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center "as he had planned." Mr. Miller's approval was conditioned on the completion of development of Units 2B and 4 and the sale of lots thereon. The shopping center to be approved was to be limited to what Mr. Brice "had originally proposed" which was a shopping center of 50,000 square feet. Mr. Brice complied with Mr. Miller's condition that he complete development of Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B. The evidence failed to prove that it was reasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the approval of Mr. Brice's intended development of a shopping center on Lot 111 would last indefinitely. It was also unreasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that the representations of Mr. Miller would survive indefinitely beyond the time that Mr. Brice completed development of Arredonda Estates. In July of 1970, Alachua County Zoning Regulations contained the following site plan approval requirement for shopping centers: No permit shall be issued for construction of a shopping center until the plans and specifications, including the design of ingress and egress roads, parking facilities, and such other items as may be found of importance have been approved by the zoning commission. Based upon this provision, Mr. Miller did not have the authority to approve the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in July of 1970. If the representations made by Mr. Miller to Mr. Brice concerning construction of the shopping center had been made in July, 1970, it would be unreasonable for Mr. Brice to rely upon Mr. Miller's representation because of the Alachua County Zoning Regulations quoted in finding of fact 31. If the representations were made before July, 1970, it would be reasonable for Mr. Brice to rely on Mr. Miller's approval of the shopping center because the evidence failed to prove that Alachua County Zoning Regulation quoted above was in effect before July, 1970. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Miller's representations were made before July, 1970. Detrimental Reliance. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Roads and drainage facilities associated with Unit 4 were constructed by 1971. The cost of these improvements was approximately $68,989.54. The total cost of improvements associated with Unit 4 was $121,947.54. Mr. Brice also had to obtain a drainage easement but the evidence failed to prove the cost of doing so. The exact amount expended on Unit 4 attributable to work performed just for Lot 111 and the shopping center was not proved by Ms. Brice. One method of allocating costs associated with the development of Unit 4 to Lot 111 suggested by Ms. Brice is to determine the percentage of acreage Lot 111 represents of the whole of Unit 4: approximately 17.9 percent. Applying this percentage to the total costs equals $21,828.61. The weight of the evidence, however, failed to prove that $21,828.61 was actually incurred in association with Lot 111. The evidence failed to prove that it would be reasonable to attribute any part of the expenditures listed in paragraphs 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 or 12 of Brice exhibit 30 as attributable to Lot 111. Based upon evidence presented by Alachua County, the total expenditures made by Mr. Brice associated with Lot 111 and the shopping center were approximately $1,005.50. Subsequent Events. Mr. Brice caused preliminary plans for a shopping center for Lot 111 to be developed. Brice exhibit 14. Those plans were never submitted for approval and no building permit was issued approving the construction of a shopping center for Lot 111. The preliminary plans for the shopping center indicate a substantially different configuration for the shopping center than indicated on the site improvement plans for Unit 4. Brice exhibit 14. No final development plan or plat approving a shopping center on Lot 111 was issued by Alachua County. Efforts were made during the 1970s to market Lot 111 for development as a shopping center. These efforts were not successful. As a part of this effort, Mr. Brice incurred $7,000.00 for the construction of a three dimensional model of the proposed shopping center evidenced on the preliminary plans. It has been suggested that Mr. Brice did not proceed with the development of the shopping center during the 1970's and into the 1980's for a number of reasons: A dispute between Mr. Brice and Alachua County arose in 1976 concerning the road in Unit 2A; A dispute also arose concerning the water system in the area of Arredonda Estates; The state of the economy was not conducive to development. The evidence, however, failed to prove why the shopping center was not developed. In 1973, Alachua County created a development review committee. Final site plans for commercial sites were required to be approved by the committee. Mr. Brice did not obtain approval for the proposed shopping center or seek assurances from Alachua County that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the shopping center on Lot 111 were still valid. During 1982 and 1983, Mr. Brice became aware of proposed revisions to the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brice met with Alachua County officials concerning the revisions and followed the progress of the revisions. In 1984 Alachua County adopted a comprehensive plan. Under this plan commercial use of Lot 111 was not allowed except for a neighborhood convenience store with square footage of 10,000 square feet. In 1985, during a meeting with Alachua County personnel, Mr. Brice and his attorney were informed that Lot 111 could not be developed as a shopping center without a comprehensive plan amendment. No amendment was applied for. In 1989, offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. Those offers were continent upon the property being developed consistent with the BR zoning. Ms. Brice's name, then known as Carla B. Sutton, first appears in connection with Lot 111 in 1989 when offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. The evidence, however, failed to prove that she was owner of Lot 111 at that time. In 1989 or 1990, a conceptual site plan review was applied for by David Miller, Mr. Brice's representative, concerning Lot 111. Brice exhibit 21. The application was considered at an Alachua County Development Review Committee meeting on March 22, 1990. Consideration of the application was deferred for two weeks. The development Review Committee met on April 19, 1990 and considered the application for conceptual site plan review for Lot 111. The Committee was concerned about how the fact that Lot 111 had been zoned BR before the comprehensive plan had been adopted impacted the fact that development of Lot 111 as a shopping center was prohibited by the comprehensive plan. A decision was delayed for a month and staff was asked to prepare a report dealing with similarly situated parcels. By January 1991, proposed language providing for vesting of certain zoning had been drafted by Alachua County. Brice exhibit 24. By letter dated January 30, 1991, Kurt Larsen, Director of the Office of Planning and Development of Alachua County, informed all affected property owners that Alachua County was "considering" allowing a period of time during which existing zoning would be honored. Brice exhibit 25 Comments were invited. By letter dated February 15, 1991, counsel for Ms. Brice responded to Mr. Larsen's January 30, 1991 letter. Brice exhibit 26. A Transmittal Draft of the Future Land Use Element of the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan dated April 1991 was sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review. See Brice exhibit 27. The Draft provided a two- year period during which undeveloped parcels zoned for a use that was otherwise inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan would be allowed to be developed essentially in accordance with existing zoning. This policy was ultimately rejected by the Department of Community Affairs. Alachua County informed Ms. Brice of the action of the Department of Community Affairs by letter dated September 18, 1991. Brice exhibit 28. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. Alachua County adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1991. The following policy was agreed to in a compromise between Alachua County and the Department of Community Affairs concerning commercial enclaves: Policy 3.4.3. Commercial Enclaves are designed within the Urban Cluster on the Future Land Use Map. These sites shall be subject to the following location and compatibility standards: Development of Commercial Enclaves shall be required to meet all concurrency requirements. Development shall be required to minimize access from arterials and collectors. Whenever possible, driveways shall use common access points to reduce potential turn movements. A maximum of 20,000 square feet of gross leasable area shall be permitted within each enclave. Uses may include neighborhood convenience centers consistent with Policy 3.8., offices consistent with Policy 3.9.1. and sit-down restaurants. The land development regulations for this land use category shall specify performance standards required to mitigate any adverse impact of such development on adjacent land uses and affected public facilities. Such performance standards shall include buffering and landscaping provisions, site design measures to locate such uses away from less intensive adjacent land uses, signage and parking restrictions, and intensity provisions (e.g. height and bulk restrictions). In the interim, until land development regulations consistent with these policies are adopted, the standards and criteria governing Commercial Enclaves shall be implemented through the County's Development Review Committee process. This policy shall be reviewed by 1993 to determine the effectiveness of the land use category. Mr. Brice was informed, after contacting the Alachua County Growth Management Department, that his development of Lot 111 was limited by the commercial enclave policy. Pursuant to the commercial enclave policy, development of Lot 111 is limited to a size of 20,000 square feet and the uses to which Lot 111 may be put are less than would be allowed under BR zoning. Carla Brice's Reliance and Detriment. The evidence in this case failed to prove that Ms. Brice, the current owner of Lot 111 and the applicant in this case, was aware of any representations made by Mr. Miller. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice in any way reasonably relied upon the representations made to her father. The evidence also failed to prove that Alachua County made any representations to Ms. Brice that she would be allowed to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. In fact, Alachua County has indicated just the opposite to Ms. Brice since she became the owner of Lot 111. In light of the amount of time that passed after Mr. Miller's representations were made to Mr. Brice and the intervening events concerning development in Alachua County before Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111, any reliance by Ms. Brice on Mr. Miller's representations would not be reasonable. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice detrimentally relied upon any representation of Alachua County concerning the development of Lot 111. Only Mr. Brice, Ms. Brice's father, made expenditures related to the development of Lot 111 as a shopping center. I. Procedural Requirements. On June 9, 1993 Ms. Brice filed her Application seeking an equitable vested rights certificate or a statutory vested rights certificate. On September 22, 1993 Kurt Larsen, Director, Department of Growth Management, Alachua County, informed Ms. Brice that the Application was denied. Ms. Brice appealed the decision to deny the Application by letter dated September 28, 1993. The Division of Administrative Hearings was requested by letter dated January 18, 1994, from Alachua County to assign a hearing officer to conduct a formal administrative hearing. The formal administrative hearing of this matter was conducted on March 14, 1994.
